Skip to main content

Full text of "Genesis and Geology"

See other formats




^ ^ ^ Archivist: 

^'^:y-^^fW^ '^^.it^': -j:;; ."r^ ^^ ^^v '? 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 












Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1887, by 

in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 

All Rights Reserved. 

CusHiNG & Co., Printers, Boston. 




Introductory 1 

Oppositions of science ; in Scripture ; the last century ; 
at the present time ; especially as to teachings of geology. 
Scripture and geology in entire harmony. Positive proofs 
of the Christian Religion ; prophecy ; miracles ; internal 
evidences. Method of harmonizing ajDparent discrepan- 
cies. Geology as a science in its infancy. Yet much in- 
formation acquired. Antiquity of the earth established ; 
a vast graveyard ; convulsions disentombing the creatures 
of the past. But not the antiquity of the human race. 
The days of Scripture ; not man's days, but God's days. 
The word " day," both in ordinary language and Scrip- 
ture, a period of indefinite length. The true question to 
be considered. Confessed ignorance of geology as to the 
work of the first two days. The earth a cooling ball of 
fire. Importance of this fact. The earth an oblate sphe- 
roid. Hot springs, earthquakes, volcanoes. Oscillations 
of the earth's surface. Gradual increase of heat with 
depth below the surface. Evidences of cooling ; gradual 
removal of surface from internal fires ; tropical produc- 
tions in Arctic regions ; oldest rocks, igneous or metamor- 
phic. Analogical argument from state of heavenly bodies. 
Sun a mass of fire; not a solid globe. Amount of heat 
radiated; specific gravity. Testimony of spectroscope. A 
cooling body ; pores ; spots. Similar testimony from the 




First Day — Gen. I. 1-5 25 

Matters discussed in previous Lecture. Kestatement 
of the question. Brevity of Mosaic account of the crea- 
tion. Work of creation not continuous ; separate days or 
periods. Correspondence of the six days of Scripture to 
the four geological eras. First verse of Gen. i. probably a 
preface to the chapter ; reasons for so considering it. In- 
ference as to the time of the creation of the heavenly 
bodies. Meaning of the word '' created." Second verse; 
five circumstances noted: 1. Without form. 2. Void. 8. 
Immersion of the earth in water. Consistency with the 
idea that the earth was once a ball of fire. Sun's atmos- 
phere. Waters of the earth, once vapors. Gradual con- 
densation. Testimony of geology as to the immersion of 
the earth in Archaean times. 4. Darkness upon the deep. 
5. Moving of the Spirit of God upon the waters. Brooded; 
Gesenius, Patrick, Milton. Revised translation. Begin- 
ning of life. Testimony of geology as to Archaean life. 
Third verse. Incoming of light. Its source, the sun. 
Gradual penetration of the vaporous envelope. Fourth 
verse. Excellence of light. Rotation of the earth. Fifth 
verse. Day and night. The evening and the morning, 
and the precedence of the former. The cause, the grad- 
ual condensation of vapor, and consequent increase of 
light through the Scriptural days. Exact order of the 
events set forth in the work of the first day ; and its har- 
mony with natural science, and geology in particular. 

Second Day — Gen. L 6-8 53 

Review of the Second Lecture. Second day. Con- 
fessed and necessary ignorance of geology as to this day's 
work. The making of the firmament, and its object. The 
• firmament is the atmosphere. Impossibility of its exist- 
ence before the first day. Gradual subsidence of heavier 



atmospheric air and carbonic acid gas. This atmosphere 
between the waters above and beneath. Necessity for the 
slow formation of the atmosphere. Proofs of the exist- 
ence and long continuance of an original vaporous envel- 
ope. The waters of earth necessarily vapor at first, and 
slow in condensation. The vaporous mask of the planets ; 
especially Mercury, Venus, and Mars. A key to interpre- 

Part II. 
Third Day — Gen. I. 9-13 67 

Preliminary remarks. According to Scripture, two 
great works : formation of land, and of vegetation. Psalm 
civ. Lands now lifted from the waters. Their perma- 
nence. Testimony of geology. Continents, then formed. 
Their outline, then permanently established. Origin of 
vegetation. Three kinds : grass, or tender herbage ; 
herbs ; fruit trees. Peculiarities of the seed of the herb 
and the fruit tree. Cryptogams and Phenogams. Order 
of the appearance of grass, herb, and fruit tree. Positive 
testimony of geology as to the fact of the creation of three 
classes of vegetation at this time ; also as to the peculiari- 
ties of the seed, and as to the order of creation of fruit 
trees. Defective testimony as to the precedence of tender 
herbage, and the reasons for it. Harmony of the records 
as to the day's work. 


Fourth Day — Gen. I. 14-19 83 

Preliminary remarks. God's threefold purpose. Puz- 
zle of theologians. Meaning of the word " made," in conver- 
sation, and in Scripture. Dressed. Prepared, Why the 
heavenly bodies were not prepared until the fourth day, 
and how they then loere prepared ; to divide the day from 
the night ; to be signs of the seasons, etc. ; to give light. 
Order of the occurrence of events: sun: moon; stars: 



days ; years. Meaning of the word " set." Connection of 
coal formation with the " preparation " of the heavenly 
bodies. Origin of coal. Prevalence of mists. Extraction 
of vapor from the atmosphere by the leaves and bark of 
plants. Unexpected harmony of Scriptural and geologi- 
cal records of this day. 

Part II. 
Fifth Day — Gen. I. 20-23 97 

Preliminary remarks. Scriptural record. Creatures 
brought forth by the waters. Two classes : the inhabi- 
tants of the waters ; the inhabitants of the air. Difficul- 
ties of translation, especially as to the work of this day. 
Meaning of "moving"; marginal translation, "creeping." 
Proofs of the correctness of the marginal translation. 
Meaning of "nephesh"; Gesenius, Young. Whales, not 
reptiles. Gesenius's definition of " Tanneenim." Dragon. 
Moses' rod. Scriptural translation and determination of 
characteristics. Serpent and crocodilian. Abundance of 
reptiles. Their vast size. Precedence to fowls. Concur- 
rent testimony of geology in every particular. Fowls. 
Creation of fowls, and definition of the term. Flying in 
the firmament. Abundance. Out of the waters. Con- 
current and exact testimony of geology. 

LECTURE v. — Part I. 
Sixth Day— Gen. I. 24-27 113 

Creatures brought forth by the land. Two divisions. 
Lower orders of animals. Man. Low^er orders in three 
classes : cattle ; creeping things ; beasts. How distin- 
guished. Large quadrupeds and domestic animals gener- 
ally. Snakes. Wild animals. Inversion of order in the 
Scriptural account implying cotemporary creation of the 
three classes and in the beginning of the day. Wonder- 
ful and precise conformity of geological statements. Man 



created on this day. Long after the other animals. Man 
the grand ^na/e of the creation. Concurrent testimony of 

Part II. 

The Antiquity of Man 126 

Question. Does geology prove that man has been 
longer on the earth than the 6,000 or 7,000 years asserted by 
the Holy Scriptures ? Different estimates of chronologists. 
Assertions of extreme antiquity by some geologists. An- 
tipathy to revelation. Uncertainty of their data. Skel- 
eton in the delta of the Mississippi. Stone (new and 
old), bronze, and iron ages. Works of man in superfi- 
cial placer deposits of California. Chipped flint instru- 
ments of the river Somme. Finds in North Carolina; 
iron potware; vial: anthracite coal; stone inkstand; 
petrified ham ; gun-barrel and stock. Coin of Edward I. 
Findings in caves. Caves as residences and burial places. 
Engis skull. Inconsistency of Le Conte. General sum- 
mary. The great cause of the prevalence of infidelity. 


To face p. 1. 

Lecture T. 


A MONG the many devices with which, in all ages, 
-^--^ the archenemy has confronted the church of God, 
have been the oppositions of science, falsely so-called. 
It was so in the days of the Apostles ; insomuch that 
St. Paul had occasion to warn Timothy against them. 
1 Tim. vi. 20. 

In the last century a crusade was proclaimed against 
the church and the faith of Christ, led on by Voltaire, 
Rousseau, Hume, T. Paine, and others. Their efforts 
culminated in the French Revolution, in the over- 
throw of every phase of Christianity in that unhappy 
country for a season, and in the installation in its stead 
of the goddess of reason. But God, who planted the 
church, has never failed to watch over it; and its 
vast extent and power at this day are a verification of 
the words of the Lord Jesus, that the "gates of hell 
shall not prevail against it." 

In our own time, and especially for some twenty 
years past, the oppositions of science have been re- 
newedy with an array of names of eminent scientists 
and others, who have succeeded in leavening the press 
of the age, in infusing their dangerous sentiments into 


many of our seminaries of learning, and in producing 
among the masses of the people widespread doubts as 
to the consistency between the teachings of the God of 
the Bible and the God of Nature. In particular, it is 
thought that in the field of geological research they 
have been enabled to erect a fortress and to arm it 
with artillery which will batter down the walls of the 
city of God, and enable its enemies to sack it and to 
raze it to the ground. It is confidently asserted that 
Geology proves that the foundation of the whole Chris- 
tian scheme, which is laid in the first chapter of the 
book of Genesis, is altogether false. It is affirmed that 
that chapter declares that the creation of the world 
took place less than six thousand years ago, whereas 
this globe is of immense and almost unimaginable an- 
tiquity ; that it represents, as being accomplished in a 
week, a work which occupied a long series of ages. 

In reply to this, it will be my endeavor (and I trust 
I shall succeed in it) to show you very clearly that in 
the teachings of Scripture in regard to the creation 
there is no conflict whatever with those of Geology or 
natural science. But that, on the contrary, the harmony 
is so wonderful that it could not be the result of acci- 
dent, and can only be accounted for on the ground that 
Moses was inspired, as he professed to be, by the Author 
of Creation to write that account of it which he has 
recorded in the first chapter of the Pentateuch. 

But before proceeding to the consideration of this 
question, I would call your attention to the fact that 
the positive proofs of the truth of the Christian reli- 
gion are innumerable and incontrovertible. The Bible 
contains thousands of prophecies concerning the Christ 


that was to come, concerning races of people, nations, 
cities, and great successions of historic events, some of 
them reaching to our own time. These prophecies 
have the nature of standing miracles, and are an attes- 
tation from God to the Divine origin of the Scriptures, 
than which it is hardly possible for him to give a greater. 
The Bible also contains accounts of supernatural works 
wrought by our Lord and his Apostles, of the reality 
of which evidence exists scarcely less forcible and con- 
clusive than if we ourselves had witnessed them with 
our own eyes, and which, consequently, are God's seal 
set upon Jesus, witnessing that he was indeed the Son 
of God. Moreover, the Bible itself contains internal 
evidences of its Divine origin, similar in force and 
strength to those marks of contrivance and design, 
w^hich in all the natural works of God proclaim so 
loudly and so clearly that the hand that made them 
is Divine. 

To those who are thoroughly acquainted with these 
foundations — solid as the everlasting hills — and these 
walls and bulwarks — more impregnable than the fort- 
ress of Gibraltar, — there will be no more dread that 
the teachings of Geology, or of any other branch of 
natural science, will disprove the Divine inspiration of 
the Scriptures, than there is that the billows of the ocean 
will overflow and whelm the solid land. Being assured 
that the Holy Scriptures and Nature are both the books 
of the God of truth, written by the same unerring 
hand, they can rest in a firm and unshaken assurance 
that their teachings must coincide. There may be, 
and doubtless ivill be, apparent contradictions, such as 
always" exist in the words and in the wiitings of every 


man, however intelligent and however sincere. But 
there are two ways of harmonizing them, one or other 
of which will always prove effective. First, we may 
be mistaken as to the real meaning of the Scriptures ; 
or, secondly, we may be in error in regard to the real 
teachings of Science. In the one case, a better under- 
standing of the Scripture will remove the difficulty; 
in the other, further and more correct knowledge of 
natural Science will put to flight all doubt. 

With respect to Geology, we must not forget that, as 
a science, it is yet in its infancy ; and this its most dili- 
gent students do not hesitate to affirm. 

It is not to be questioned, however, that the labors 
of geologists have been rewarded with a vast amount 
of most curious, interesting, and valuable information, 
accumulated within an incredibly short period of time. 
Among other things, geologists have proved to a dem- 
onstration the immense antiquity of this globe. I have 
scarce a doubt that it has been in existence for millions 
of years, and possibly for scores of millions of years. 

The upper surface of this globe, for some fifteen to 
twenty miles in depth, is one vast graveyard. It has 
entombed within it the remains of probably all, or nearly 
all, the species of plants and animals that have ever 
existed upon it, from its formation until the present 
hour. There is the clearest and most unquestionable 
evidence that the solid structure of the globe has under- 
gone a great variety of very wonderful changes and 
transformations. That which is now the surface was 
ill many places once buried miles under ground. What 
are now mountain tops were in some cases, beyond all 
peradventure, once buried beneath the waters of the 


ocean. At times there have been gradual oscillations 
of the earth's surface ; sometimes rising, at others, sink- 
ing. Again, there have been immense convulsions, 
compared with which the earthquake of the past year, 
which so changed the face of nature in the island of 
Java and its vicinity, is no more than as the popping of 
a fire-cracker would be to the explosion of a cannon. 

These great changes, however, are the foundation of 
geological knowledge, and enable its devotees to read 
the records of creation from the first dawn in gs of ani- 
mal and vegetable life in the most remote antiquity, 
and to trace the series of developments which have 
taken place even to the present time. To these convul- 
sions we are indelTted for a knowledge of animals and 
plants that ran their race in the far distant ages of the 
past. During their lifetime they were, of course, on the 
surface of the globe, either on dry land, or buried a 
short distance beneath the waters. But as ages rolled 
by, a gradual subsidence of the earth would sink them 
into the depths, where they would be covered by mud 
and sand from the washings of waves, and the settlings 
from the waters, and also by the shells of innumerable 
marine animals. These, by and by, would harden into 
rocks, that would effectually entomb them, and for 
all time to come preserve their remains. And as 
myriads of years passed by, rocks miles in thickness 
would thus be formed, entombing successive races of 
plants and animals, until by and by some great con- 
vulsion would occur, upheaving the horizontal rocks, 
tearing them to pieces, lifting them from their beds 
miles below the surface, perhaps to the summits of 
great mountain ridges, twisting and turning them, 


sometimes folding them, and occasionally melting them 
through the action of subterranean fires; and yet on 
the whole preserving to a very considerable extent the 
order of the succession of the various layers and species 
of rock. Nearly all these rocks thus raised from the 
depths, will be found to contain fossil remains of the 
plants and animals of cotemporary ages. Thus the dead 
are in a measure disentombed, brought to the surface 
of the earth, and subjected to the inspection and 
study of man. By noticing the species which each 
class of rocks contains, and the order in which the 
rocks lie upon each other, a chapter of the world's his- 
tory is read. By extending these observations over far 
distant regions, multiplying them indefinitely, and com- 
paring the results of investigation in different places, 
they are enabled to arrange the chapters together in 
their order, and thus to make out a book of the world's 
history in the order that God originally wrote it, from 
the twilight of Archaean time down to the present hour. 
The great antiquity of this globe, therefore, is fully made 
out ; but, he it remembered^ not the antiquity of the 


Geology testifies to man's recent origin. But of that 
we hope to speak in a future lecture. It is affirmed, 
however, by some, that the proof of the antiquity of the 
earth is of itself sufficient to disprove the Divine inspi- 
ration of the Scriptures : inasmuch as it is contended 
that the Scriptures teach that the world was made in 
six natural days, on the last of which man was created; 
that man, according to Scriptural chronology, has only 
been about six thousand years upon the earth ; that 
the earth is only five days older than man ; and that 


therefore, according to Scripture, the earth is not an- 
cient, but of recent origin. Here appears to be a for- 
midable difficulty. How is it to be met ? I confess to 
a change in my own opinion, as to the way in which 
this difficulty is to be set aside. At an early period of 
my life, when much less was known of Geology than is 
now known, of the two solutions which were given of 
it, I adopted one which I am now fully convinced is 
erroneous. It was this: that the record contained in 
Genesis i. was not a history of the original creation of the 
earth and its living creatures. But that while the first 
verse, "In the beginning God created the heaven and 
the earth," contains a statement of the original creation 
of the Universe by the Almighty, all the rest of the 
chapter was simply an account of the manner in which, 
after nriany previous creations of plants and animals, the 
world was refitted, and the present races of plants and 
animals were formed in six natural days. The Scrip- 
tures admit of such an interpretation, and it does away 
with all difficulty based upon an admission of the great 
antiquity of the globe. 

But afterward I was so struck with the singular cor- 
respondence between the order in which Geology rep- 
resents the creation to have taken place and that which 
the Scriptures declare, that I was led to further investi- 
gations, which fully satisfied my mind that the account 
given us of the creation in Genesis i. is an account of the 
world's history from the beginning of life upon it to the 
present era. But that the six days of creation are not 
six of man's days, but six of Grod's days ; and that the 
duration of those days bears a likeness to the eternity 
of G-od''s existence somewhat proportioned to what six 


natural days bear to the three score years and ten of 
man^s eartJdy life. In other words, that those six days 
are six geological periods of immense duration ; and 
that they are measured by hundreds of thousands, and 
probably by millions of years. 

But the question arises. What right have we to say 
that these days mean, not periods of twenty-four hours, 
but periods of vast duration ? Does not the ordinary 
use of the term ''day," in our common conversation, 
and especially does not the Scriptural use of it, confine 
it definitely to twenty-four hours, and forbid the idea 
that it can be used in reference to a period of indefinite 
length ? We answer both of these questions most decid- 
edly in the negative ! As to our use of the word in 
our common conversation. What is more frequent than 
to say, " I hope that such and such an evil will not occur 
in my day " ? But " day," as thus used, does not mean 
a period of twenty-four hours. It means the entire 
period of my life ; although that life should be protrac- 
ted to a hundred years. And if we turn to the Scrip- 
tures, and consider in what sense the word " day " is 
there used, we shall find the result of our investigation 
equally satisfactory. The word " day," in the singular 
number (not to speak of its plural, days'), occurs some 
fifteen hundred times in Holy Scripture. And in a 
multitude, yes, perhaps in hundreds, of instances, it does 
not mean a period of twenty-four hours. Sometimes a 
day means a year. This is the case in prophetic lan- 
guage, especially in the books of Daniel, and of the 
Revelation. Again, a " day " means the period of the 
existence of any object. Thus David, in Psalm Ixxiii. 14, 
says, "All the day long have I been plagued, and 


chastened every morning." His meaning evidently is 
that all his life long he had been plagued ; and that he 
had been chastened every morning of that life. In 
John viii. our Lord said to the Jews, '' Your father, 
Abraham, rejoiced to see my day ; and he saw it, and was 
glad." Here the word, " day," means the time of our 
Lord's earthly life ; or else the time of his manifestation 
to the world. Li John ix. 4, our blessed Lord says, "I 
must work the works of him that sent me, while it is 
day ; the night corneth when no man can work." Here, 
again, our Lord clearly means by day^ his lifetime ; and 
the whole verse declares the necessity he was under to 
be diligent in duty while life lasted, because " the night 
Cometh," that is, because his death drew nigh in which 
it was impossible for his life-work to be accomplished. 
In like manner, our Lord uses the word, " day," in con- 
nection with the city of Jerusalem, to signify, perhaps, 
the hundreds of years of its existence, saying, "If thou 
hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day the 
things which belong unto thy peace ! " Or, he may 
have referred to the day of her visitation by himself; 
but in either case, it means, not a day of twenty-four 
hours, but a protracted period of time. 

Many more similar expressions might be quoted. 

But we also find the word, " day," used to denote a 
period of protracted but of indefinite duration. Thus, 
in Joel ii. 1, 2, God threatens the Israelites with a griev- 
ous plague of locusts, and uses this language ; " Let 
all the inhabitants of the land tremble ; for the day of 
the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand, A day of dark- 
ness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick 
darkness." Here the word, " day," is used three times, 


and in every instance it means the period during which 
the plague of tlie locusts lasted, whatever the length of 
that period may have been. In Zechariah iv. we read 
a reference to the laying of the foundation of the second 
temple by Jerubabel, the civil ruler of the Jews, who, 
few in number and greatly impoverished, had recently 
returned from their captivity in Babylon. Speaking of 
their destitute condition and encouraging them under 
it, God says : '' Who hath despised the day of small 
things ? " Here " the day of small things " unques- 
tionably means the period during which their poverty 
and feebleness should continue. In like manner we 
find repeated references in Scripture to the Day of 
Judgment. But who imagines that transaction in which 
all the deeds of all the human family are to be reviewed 
and passed upon will take place within the limits of 
twenty-four hours? Besides, it will be remembered 
that the earth, whose revolution marks the period of 
twenty-four hours, will then have been destroyed and 
will have passed away. These illustrations are a few 
out of a vast number which might be adduced to show 
you that the term " day," very commonly in Scripture, 
does not mean one of our week days, but means a period 
of time of indefinite length. And therefore it is not 
necessar}^ to suppose that the six days during which 
God was fashioning this world and peopling it with its 
inhabitants, referred to six periods of twenty-four hours. 
But as they were days during which God was working, 
it is but reasonable to suppose that they were periods 
of time proportioned to his own immeasurable existence ; 
days such as he might be expected to employ who has 
no need of haste to accomplish his work; and who 


in the development of so minute and simple an object 
as a California pine-tree occupies thousands of our 
natural years. And having wrought six of his days 
and then ceased from the work of creation, it is very 
natural that he should ordain that we should commem- 
orate this work by working six of our days, and resting 
on the seventh. It is true that God tells us that his 
six days had each their "evening and morning" as our 
days have ; but I hope to recur to this matter hereafter, 
and to show you that his days did indeed each have 
their evening and morning, and yet an evening and 
morning of much longer duration than those of our 
natural days. 

Having thus established the fact that the word, " day," 
both in our common cojiversation., and in frequent Scrip- 
tural usage, means a period of indefinite length, it may 
mean so in Genesis i. Those days may have been periods 
of any imaginable length. And hence the antiquity of 
this globe is in nowise inconsistent with the teachings of 
Scripture. But the plain question for us to consider 
is : Does the account which is given by Moses in Genesis 
i. of the primeval condition of the world, and of the suc- 
cessive steps b}^ which it was fitted up and peopled with 
its various inhabitants, correspond with the clear and 
unmistakable teachings of natural science, and especially 
of Geology, in regard to its primitive condition, and the 
various changes which took place in it, until the time 
man was formed and dominion was given him "over 
the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and 
over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every 
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth"? 

But here it must be observed that when we come to 


consider the primitive condition of this globe, we find 
that Geology is at fault ; for it does not profess to know 
but very little of v/hat was done during the period 
which corresponds to the first two days of the Book of 
Genesis. It is almost entirely occupied with the work 
of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days. 

Geology examines a portion of the earth's surface 
about fifteen to twenty miles in thickness, because 
rocks have been thrown up from about that depth to 
our inspection ; but it can only speculate as to what lies 
beneath that depth, and as to what took place before 
those fifteen to twenty miles of rock were formed. But 
from what geologists know of the earth's surface con- 
dition, and from what Astronomy reveals in regard to 
the condition of the heavenly bodies, especially those of 
the solar system, they obtain very valuable data upon 
whicli to base their opinions^ and they have almost unan- 
imousl}^ come to the following conclusions : First, that 
a few miles beneath the depths from which the lowest 
surface rocks have been thrown up there is a great mass 
of fire. In other words, they believe this whole earth 
to be a ball of probably liquid flame, nearly eight thou- 
sand miles in diameter, surrounded by a solid crust 
from twenty-five to thirty miles in thickness. Secondly, 
they believe that the earth is, through the ages as they 
roll along, gradually cooling ; and that there was a time 
when its whole mass was one vast fiery ocean. Of the 
correctness of these conclusions I, for one, am thoroughly 
persuaded ; but as of late some have undertaken to 
question their correctness, before we can proceed to 
investigate the teachings of the Book of Genesis as to 
the work of the first two days of creation, it will be 


important to show you on what grounds we believe this 
globe to have been at one time a ball of fire, and that 
it is still so, except on this outer crust upon which we 
live. And this is necessary to be done, because the ex- 
planation which we propose to give of Genesis i. does 
in part rest upon this as a basis. It is the key to 
the proper understanding of the Mosaic account of 
the creation. And therefore we must settle this question 
before we proceed to compare the Scriptural and Geolo- 
gical records. We say, therefore, that these views are 
sustained, in the first place, from various considerations 
connected with the condition of the globe itself. That 
the earth is not a solid body throughout its whole in- 
ternal mass is indicated by its sliape^ which is that of an 
oblate spheroid ; that is to say, instead of being exactly 
round, like a ball or an orange, it is flattened at the 
poles and bulges out at the centre, insomuch that its 
polar diameter is about twentj^-six miles shorter than 
its equatorial diameter. This is exactly what we would 
expect its shape to be if there is liquid fire in its centre. 
For revolving rapidly as it does about its axis, the cen- 
trifugal forces would necessarily be greater about the 
equator; and this, if the earth is yielding within, would 
cause the equatorial regions of the earth to protrude at 
the same time that the parts about the poles would con- 
tract. That this would be the natural result, any one 
can satisfy himself practically by ranging hoops of tin 
or iron together, somewhat in a globular form, with an 
iron rod through the centre to correspond to the axis of 
the earth. If, holding the rod in your hand, you whirl 
the hoops around it as an axis, you will see at once a 
protrusion of the centre and a flattening at the poles of 


the miniature globe. It is true this oblate spheroidal 
form might accidentally be the shape of the earth if it were 
solid. But that it is not accidental may be inferred 
from "the condition of the planet Jupiter. Jupiter's 
diameter is about eleven times as great as that of this 
earth. But its day is only te7i hours long, consequently, 
its huge bulk is ivhirled upon its axis With, far greater 
rapidity than is the earth ; and upon the very natural 
supposition that it, too, is not a solid body throughout, 
the result which might be expected actually takes place. 
For it might be anticipated that the immense centri- 
fugal force at its equatorial regions would cause a vastly 
greater enlargement at the centre and flattening at its 
poles than is found upon this earth. And such is in fact 
the case ; for the difference between the length of its 
polar and equatorial diameters is five thousand miles. 
While the length of its diameter is only about eleven 
times that of the earth, its flattening is nearly two hun- 
dred times as great as that of the earth. That there 
are vast internal fires beneath the earth's crust is also 
manifest from the existence of hot springs, earthquakes, 
and volcanoes over the whole surface of the globe. 
Out of some of the hot springs the water issues scalding 
hot. We find them in North Carolina. We find them 
in Arkansas. We find them in every country and in 
every climate, even in frozen Iceland and Siberia. And 
they are not temporary, but continue for ages. The 
Hot Wells of Bristol, in England, are known to have 
been flowing constantly for a period of about two thou- 
sand years. How much longer, no man can tell. What 
but a vast internal fire beneath the earth's surface 
over the whole globe can rationally account for the exist- 


ence of these springs? And what else can account 
fur earthquakes such as sometimes occur ? What else 
can have power sufficient so to shake this globe as to 
roll a wave entirely across the Pacific Ocean from the 
shores of Japan to San Francisco, in California? What 
else could shake the earth to its centre as did the late 
earthquake in Java and its vicinity, bursting the ribs 
of the earth, burying high mountains in the huge 
caverns opened, and lifting up mountains out of the 
the ocean's bed? What else than a fiery globe beneath 
the surface could have lifted up the Alleghany Moun- 
tains and Appalachian chain, of which they are a por- 
tion, raising some parts of them to the surface from a 
depth of seven or eight miles? But in volcanoes we 
actually see the fiery floods burst forth from their deep 
caverns. And what but a globe of fire could have caused 
such an eruption as took place in Iceland in 1783, when 
a flood burst forth from the volcano Skaptor Jokul, and 
continued to flow for two whole years ? It formed two 
rivers of burning lava, one of which was forty miles 
long and seven miles broad ; and the other, jifty miles 
long and twelve miles broad. Thirdly, the oscillations 
which are taking place all the world over in the height 
of the land, with reference to the water, can only be 
accounted for on the supposition that this earth is, be- 
neath the surface, a ball of fire. Everywhere we find 
the land in some places rising above the water; in 
others, sinking into it. The eastern coast of North 
Carolina is now manifestly sinking, and the waters of 
the Atlantic are gaining upon the land. We have evi- 
dences of this within three or four miles of my own 
residence. And in the ages that are past, our whole 


Atlantic border has been upon a perpetual see-saw, at 
times, sinking into the ocean, and again emerging from 
it. But before the Appalachian chain of mountains 
was formed, the sinkings must have exceeded the risings 
by several miles. Such a result co^ild not have taken 
place had not the earth been a yielding mass Avithin, 
with such vast pent-up forces as only imprisoned fires 
could have to rock a continent as in a cradle. A 
fourth, and conclusive^ proof that this earth is but a crust 
of rock surrounding a globe of flame is this: that where- 
ever, in any part of the globe, ^^its have been sunk into 
the earth," and wherever borings have been made, it has 
been found that, after the first hundred feet, there is a 
gradual increase of temperature of one degree Fahren- 
heit for every fifty-five feet of descent. But after de- 
scendhig about two thousand feet, the increase of tem- 
perature becomes more rapid. But if about one degree 
for every fifty-three feet be assumed as the average 
increase, then in descending thirty miles the heat would 
increase from about sixty-five degrees Fahrenheit to over 
three thousand degrees — a heat which would melt gran- 
ite, and perhaps every other rock in existence. So that 
this amounts to almost a positive demonstration that 
this entire globe, with the exception of a crust of some 
twenty-five, or possibly thirty miles in thickness, is one 
pent-up ocean of melted fiery rock and other earthy in- 

But if the earth is noiv in this condition, then it must 
(at one time) have been a ball of flame, which has grad- 
ually cooled until it has attained its present status. Of 
this, there are numerous and satisfactory proofs. That 
the earth is all the time cooling is evident. First, from 


the fact that geologists can trace tlie formation of fif- 
teen or twenty miles of the eartli's crust, leaving pre- 
viously a thickness of certainly not more than ten miles, 
and perhaps not more than five. But this increase of 
the thickness of the crust must naturally have gradually 
removed the surface from the fires within and caused it 
to become cooler. 

But that in point of fact this cooling has certainly 
taken place, is witnessed to by the productions of the 
earth, both its plants and animals. In regions border- 
ing upon the North Pole, where now there is scarce any 
vegetation, there are to be found immense bodies of 
fossil plants, which must have grown upon the spot^ with 
a luxuriance only rivalled by the tropical regions of 
the globe. And in the ice-bound regions of Northern 
Siberia there have been worked for some time past huge 
beds containing ivory, the remains of the mammoth, or 
elephant of by-gone days. And yet the elephant now 
inhabits, in his native state, only tropical or semi-tropi- 
cal regions. And other geological observations prove 
that as time rolled on, these tenants of tropical regions 
gradually retreated from the poles, showing the gradual 
cooling of the earth's surface. 

But in the ages which were long before the existence 
of tropical animals and plants at the poles, — I mean 
those ages in which the oldest rocks were formed of 
which we have any knowledge, — we find that these rocks 
were all of an igneous or metamorphic character. Igne- 
ous rocks are such as granite, syenite, and porphyry, 
and are called igneous rocks because they bear marks of 
having originally been so acted upon by fire as to have 
been in a melted state. Metamorphic rocks are such as 


slate, Hint, and marble : these at one time have been 
under water, but have been crystallized by the combined 
action of intense heat and pressure. But if all the old- 
est rocks known were thus melted, then when they were 
formed the earth must have been little more than a fiery 
mass : and as the same process of cooling was going on 
before ihQiv formation that has taken place since, there- 
fore as we go back, we necessarily keep approximating 
to a period when all was flame. 

But if we leave this glohe^ and consider the condition 
of the heavenly bodies^ especially the members of the 
solar system, we shall derive a very powerful analogical 
argument to prove these same points, namely : that this 
earth is a cooling globe that was once one great ocean 
of fire. For as the sun and planets and their satellites 
are all members of one family, it is only reasonable to 
suppose that they pass through the same stages of 
development. And an examination of their condition 
clearly indicates that such is really the case. Take the 
sun, for example. This is not improbably the great 
parent orb of the family. Its bulk is about one and a 
quarter millions of times as great as that of this earth ; 
and if it is a cooling ball of fire, it confirms the idea 
that this earth is so also. But as its mass is so many 
times greater than that of the earth, it is not to be 
expected that it has advanced in that direction more 
than a very small fraction of the distance that this earth 
has. That it is a ball of fire seems very evident. But 
the opinion which has of late gained currency, namely, 
that the sun is a solid., dark globe, surrounded by a 
luminous atmosphere only, has ever appeared to me 
most unreasonable. For, in the first place, how is it 


possible that a mere luminous atmosphere could, through 
interminable ages, dispense in every direction the im- 
mense amount of light and heat which are ever emanat- 
ing from the sun's body? Think of the vast amount 
of heat that the earth over all its surface receives from 
the sun in the course of every twenty-four hours ; and 
yet what it receives is only the one two billion three 
hundred millionth part of what leaves the sun's body in 
that time ! That the sun has a luminous atmosphere, 
and that its breadth is about one-seventh of its diame- 
ter, there is indeed reason to believe ; but how anything 
but a great globe of fire could through all the ages con- 
tinue to dispense in every direction such a vast amount 
of heat as proceeds from the sun, is more than we can 
imagine. The specific gravity of the sun is evidence 
that it is a globe of fire. For it has only about the 
fourth part of the specific gravity of the earth. But 
this shows that while, as we learn from the spectroscope, 
the materials which compose it are identical with those 
of this globe, they must be in a very different condition. 
On the supposition that they are in a state of fusion^ 
this difference in specific gravity is very readily ac- 
counted for. For the effect of heat is to expand almost 
all substances, and eventually to convert them into gases. 
But on what other supposition this difference in specific 
gravity is to be accounted for I know not. But 
assurance as to the fiery condition of the sun's body is 
made doubly sure, by the revelations of the spectro- 
scope. This proves conclusively that according to well- 
known spectroscopic laws, sunlight is produced by a 
highly heated dense body, shining through a flame full 
of volatilized substances; and consequently that the 


sun is a sea of fire surrounded by an atmosphere of 
gases and vapors produced by tlie intensity of its heat. 
But if the sun he an ocean of fire, it would be natural 
to suppose, as I have already intimated, that the effect 
of throwing out such vast quantities of heat during so 
many ages would be gradually to cool it ; and that as 
we believe this earth and some other planets to have 
become crusted over by solid rocks, so the sun might 
be exjDccted to show indications of solids forming upon 
its surface. And this is exactly what we find does in 
fact take place. The sun necessarily cools more slowly 
on account of its vast bulk. Yet it cools. For we find 
that the face of the sun is not all brightness ; but that 
it is sprinkled over with dark dots, called ^^ pores " ; and 
also that spots of considerable size, and sometimes many 
in number, are from time to time visible upon it. It 
is true that the existence of dark spots upon the sun is 
appealed to, in confirmation of their theory, by those 
who believe the sun to be a dark, solid body surrounded 
by a luminous atmosphere. Their idea is that by some 
means or other (it, is difficult to imagine how) powerful 
currents are excited in the sun which sweep away the 
luminous atmosphere and allow the dark body of the 
sun to become visible to us. But it must be remem- 
bered that these spots are frequently of enormous size ; 
in 1839 there was one seen which was about one hun- 
dred and eighty-six thousand miles long, and on an 
average, about one hundred and twenty-five thousand 
miles wide. Its breadth, therefore, was more than fif- 
teen times, and its length was more than twenty times, 
the length of the earth's diameter. Consequently, it 
must have been about four hundred times as large as 


this earth would have appeared to have been, had 
the earth been placed on the sun's disc alongside of it. 
Can we conceive of the existence of a current that, 
for one hour even, could have swept away the sun's at- 
mosphere, piled it up around, stiffened it so as to pre- 
vent its flowing back and through such a gigantic 
chasm, have revealed the body of the sun ? But these 
spots (not so large as this one, but of vast dimensions) 
have lain upon the face of the sun for six months or 
more at a time. How during all this time a current 
could be kept up to reveal the same identical spot is a 
mystery which passes all our powers of conception. 

But on the supposition that the sun's spots are solid 
masses gathering upon the surface of a fiery ocean, all 
the numerous peculiarities connected with these spots 
receive a ready solution. 

In the first place, these spots are dark in appearance. 
If they are incipient land, of course they will be so ; be- 
cause not being so bright as the fused portions of the 
sun, and lying upon its surface, they will intercept the 
light from ihdit portion of the sun's body on which they lie, 
and must needs appear dark. But, secondly, it has 
been observed that the centres of these spots are darker 
than their edges. This arises from the fact that the great 
mass is accumulated at the centre and is cooler than the 
rest of the body. Immersed in the sun, it is all hot. 
But the edges would be hotter than the centre ; and 
although not fused^ might be still at a red, or even a 
white, heat, and thus would not appear so dark as the 
cooler central portion. Thirdly, these spots have some- 
times luminous bridges between their several portions. 
These are evidently breaks in the spots, separating its 


* parts, and revealing the bright body of the sun between 
them. Fourthly, the edge8 of the spots are brighter 
than other portions of the sim^s disc. And is not the 
edge of our watery ocean (where the waves are ever 
breaking upon the shore) brighter than any other por- 
tion of it? And can we not well imagine that those 
tremendous mountain waves of fire that roll over the 
face of the sun should ever be dashing upon the edges 
of the solid spots, and thus intensify the brilliancy of 
the flame ? Fifthly, it has been noticed that the 
presence of a spot on the sun's disc causes that portion 
of the disc to be perceptibly cooler than the rest of the 
sun's face. The spot is not so hot as the rest of the 
sun, and it must necessarily make it cooler. Sixthly, 
the size of the spots is affected by the planets^ especially 
by Venus on account of its nearness, and Jupiter on 
account of its size. The spots are least when these 
planets are on the same side of the sun with the earth, 
and largest when they are both on the opposite side 
of the sun from the earth. The evident reason of 
this is because the planets make tides on the fiery 
ocean of the sun, just as the moon makes tides on 
the watery ocean of this earth. When the planets 
are on the same side of the sun with the earth, they 
so swell the solar tide as partly to bury beneath them 
the outer and lower portions of the spots. Whereas 
when they are on the opposite side of the sun, they 
draw away the tide, and the spot appears larger. 

Seventhly, the spots have two motions: one of 
them, as all agree, is caused by the sun's rotation upon 
its axis. But they have another and independent mo- 
tion of their own. This is evidently because they are 


floating islands ; and consequently not only rotate with 
the sun upon its axis, but are driven to and fro by 
the winds and currents of the fiery ocean. 

Eighthly, these spots sometimes change their forms 
rapidly, or are torn to pieces, and perhaps suddenly 
and entirely disappear. All these circumstances are the 
natural result of their being incipient land forming 
upon a fiery ocean. For if the storms of our earthly 
ocean can sport with the hugest leviathans that man 
can construct, as though they were feathers, and whelm 
them in their waves as though they were but foam, we 
need not wonder that the fiery surges of the sun can, 
when their wrath is excited, rend to pieces the islands 
that float upon their bosom, and bury them in their 
yawning chasms. 

Lastly, these spots are frequently formed from the 
pores of the sun as nuclei. Believing that these pores 
are smaller bodies of land, it is very reasonable to sup- 
pose that as particles of butter are gathered together in 
churning, into a solid mass, so these pores, driven 
together by the churning of the sun's waves, may be 
made to aggregate, and through the power of attraction 
be brought together into one vast body, so as to form a 
spot on the sun's disc. 

But if it be objected to all this, that the solid land 
would be heavier than the fiery wave, and therefore 
could not float upon it, we answer that when rocks are 
first formed from lava, they are light and porous, and 
that the lands of the sun having never been subjected 
to pressure like the rocks beneath our feet, may very 
well b6 lighter than the fused mass upon which they lie. 
The fact, too, that a solid crust soon is formed and lies 


upon a river of lava is a demonstration that the crust is 
lighter than the liquid lava. 

All these considerations are to my mind conclusive 
evidence that the sun is a ball of fire. But in the 
sun's fve^ent condition we behold a picture of what 
we have every reason to believe this earth once was. 
And were it not that it would too greatly protract this 
lecture, we might show from an examination of the con- 
dition of the planets of the solar system what solid evi- 
dence there is that they were all once balls of fire, and 
that the larger planets are little more than that now. If 
not absolutely certain that the earth was once a ball of fire, 
the evidence certainly falls little short of demonstration. 
And this being incomparably the most reasonable sup- 
position, we propose proceeding upon this basis to show 
in future lectures how wonderfully Natural Science, and 
Geology in particular, coincide in their teachings with 
the book of Divine Revelation. 








C Z 
E O 

N I 
O C 











M Z 
E O 

S I 
O C 






P O 
A Z 

L O 
A I 

E C 













To face jj. '25. 

Lectuee II, 

FIRST DAY. — GEN. I. 1-5. 

"TN our former lecture we stated among other things, 
-*- that the immense antiquity of this globe is estab- 
lished, by geological research, beyond all doubt. This 
fact, however, is not inconsistent with the Scriptural 
statement that God made the world in six days. Be- 
cause, as we showed, the word "day" in Scripture does 
not always mean a period of twenty-four hours ; but 
frequently means a period of indefinite length. And as 
the days of Genesis i. were G-ocTs work days, they may 
very well mean six geological periods. And inasmuch 
as the explanation we propose to give of the harmony 
between the Mosaic and the geological accounts of the 
creation is in part based upon the fact that this globe 
was once a ball of fire, we also showed at some length 
the numerous, clear, and (I may say) demonstrative 
proofs that such was indeed the fact : as it also is the 
generally accepted opinion among scientific men. 

The question, therefore, for us to Consider is this : Does 
the account given us in Genesis i. of the primitive con- 
dition of the world accord with the geological and scien- 
tific account of it ? And in the further account given 
us of the successive steps of creation, does it harmonize 
with the geological record? And here let me remind 


you that the account given us of this vast work which 
occupied myriads of ages in its accomplishment is very 
brief, being written on a single page of the Sacred Vol- 
ume. It is not to be expected, therefore, that we shall 
find in Scripture a record of all the minute events of 
geological history, or even of those of a subordinate char- 
acter, although they may be absolutely events of great 
importance. If we may suppose the events of the crea- 
tion to have been represented in vision to the prophet, 
and that his mental eye beheld them as in a panorama, 
spreading and stretching out before him, all that he 
could do would be to seize the most prominent features 
of the landscape, to note the order of their occurrence, 
and to commit an account of them to writing. This 
then, and this is all we have a right to expect in a nar- 
rative so brief as that of Genesis i. We have a right to 
expect that we shall find there a statement of the m,ost 
important events in the history of the creation, and 
that in general they shall be related in the order in 
which they occurred. And as we proceed in the exami- 
nation of our subject, we shall find that this is exactly 
what has been done. 

In taking a general view of the Scriptural record, the 
first matter which arrests our attention is the fact that 
it is not one continuous and unbroken record. The 
creative process is divided up into periods. We have 
first an account of what God did on the first of his 
days ; then, of the second day's work ; and so on, through 
six successive days, or periods. It is worthy of note, 
therefore, that, according to the Scriptural account, the 
work of creation was broken up into well-defined periods^ 
and that these periods were six in number. 


What do geologists say on this subject? Do they 
affirm that there were in the creation any number of 
distinct and well-defined periods, separated from each 
other by broad, distinctive features? They do affirm 
this. And while they assert that geological history has 
numberless chapters and sections^ they maintain that it 
has several great volumes of history, separately hound^ 
as it were, and so distinguished from each other. The 
words of the evolutionist Le Conte on this subject are 
very notable. Speaking in his work on Geology of the 
Palceozoic Era, he says : " This is a distinct system of 
rocks, revealing a distinct time-world — a distinct rock- 
system, containing the record of a distinct ?z/e-system — 
a hound volume — volume second of the Book of Time." 

According to geologists, there are four of these great 
eras. They are called : first, the Archsean, that is, the 
beginning, or Eozoic Era, that is, the era of dawn life; 
secondly, the Palaeozoic Era, that is, the era of ancient 
life ; thirdly, the Mesozoic Era, that is, the era of 
middle life ; fourthly, the Cenozoic Era, that is, the 
era of recent life. 

This distinction of eras is universally acknowledged 
by geologists. It is founded upon the fact already re- 
cited from Le Conte, that geologists find this number 
of wholly distinct roch systems. These systems are 
marked by the fact that they contain wholly, or almost 
wholly, distinct species of plants and animals. But as 
we have already seen, the Scriptures declare six periods. 
Since, then, Geology declares only four^ how are we to 
reconcile this difference of record? 

We answer : The first of these geological periods, the 
Archaean, corresponds to the first two days of Genesis. 


The second geological period, the Palaeozoic, corre- 
sponds to the third and fourth days of Genesis. The 
third geological period, the Mesozoic, corresponds to 
the fifth day of Genesis. And the fourth period, the 
Cenozoic, corresponds to the sixth day of Genesis. But 
if it be asked. Why is it that the Scripture makes two 
days each of the ArcliEean and of the Palaeozoic periods ? 
our answer is this : That the discrepancy is only in 
semblance^not in reality. Geology only takes cognizance 
of changes in the structure of the solid earthy and in the 
plants and animals which have lived upon it. It knows 
nothing, and cannot possibly know anything, of changes 
in the ski/. It tells us of four great changes in the 
structure and in the life of the globe ; and the Scriptures 
do the same. Thet/ tell us of four and onl^ four such 
Eras. They are the first day, which corresponds to the 
former part of the Archaean, or Eozoic Era ; the third 
day, which corresponds to the former part of the Palaeo- 
zoic Era ; the fifth day, which coincides with the Meso- 
zoic Era ; and the sixth day, which coincides with the 
Cenozoic Era. This leaves unnoticed the second day, 
which, as will be seen by reference to the chart on page 
24, corresponds to the latter part of the Archiean Era ; 
and the fourth day, which corresponds to the latter part 
of the Palaeozoic Era. But it was not possible for Geol- 
ogy to notice those two days, because the Scripture 
tells us that the work done on those days was wrought, 
not upon the solid globe itself, but upon the heavens. 
The second day's Avork was the making of the firma- 
ment. This leaves no trace upon the sohd structure of 
the globe, and, as a matter of course, Geology knows, 
and can know, nothing about it. The fourth day's work 


was upon the sun, moon, and stars ; and of this, in like 
manner, Geok)gy is necessarily ignorant. But while 
Geology, from the very nature of the case, knows, and 
can know, nothing of the work wrought in the heavens 
upon those two days, it yet confirms the Scriptural rec- 
ord in regard to it, as far as it is possible to give in its 
evidence. It tells us that there was ample time for those 
two Scriptural days. It represents the Archsean Era 
(the latter part of which was the second day of Scrip- 
ture) as being probably as long as all the other three 
eras put together. It also tells us that there was abun- 
dant time in the Palseozoic Era for the fourth as well as 
for the third day of Scripture, inasmuch as this era was 
more than twice as long as both the Mesozoic and Ceno- 
zoic Eras put together. It is a fact, then, that the 
Scriptures and Geology agree in assigning definite peri- 
ods to the work of creation. They agree in declaring 
the same number of life periods ; namely, four. And 
they agree as to the time when these life periods occur. 
But I have given you good and substantial reasons for 
accepting the Scriptural statement that there were six 
periods during the creation, rather than the geological 
statement that there were only four. We are now 
prepared to take up the Scriptural and geological records 
of the successive periods arid compare them. But re- 
member that confessedly Geology knows very little about 
Archaean time ; that is, as we have already explained, 
the time which corresponds to the first two days of the 

We shall in speaking of the works wrought upon 
these days, bring forward the Scriptural record first, 
and compare it with the geological in so far as Geology 


has any record. And in the absence of any geological 
record, we shall consider whether from the very nature 
of the case, the facts which the Scriptures declare must 
not 7iecessarily have taken place, and that, too, in the 
very order in which the Scriptures recite them. 

The first verse of Genesis reads thus, " In the begin- 
ning God created the heaven [or heavens] and the earth." 
But here this question presents itself. How are we to 
regard this verse ? Is it a general preface to the whole 
account of the creation ? reciting an act of God which 
may have been performed any number of ages before 
what is recited in the second verse ? or, is the account 
of creation recited, the first work of the first day? 

We incline to the belief that this first verse was in- 
tended to be a preface to the whole chapter. And the 
reason for so considering it is, that it is most in accord- 
ance with the general structure of this Book of Genesis, 
which is for the most part a series of prefaces. Regard- 
ing the first verse as a preface to the first chapter, see 
how entirely it accords with the general plan of the 
book. We shall then have in this verse an account of 
the creation of all the heavenly bodies, prefatory to a 
more minute account in the balance of the chapter of 
the formation of one particular world, namely, the earth. 
The whole of the first chapter is an account of this 
whole earth and all its creatures prefatory to an account 
of one particular creature, namely, man, in the next 
ten chapters. From the second to the end of the elev- 
enth chapter we have a history of the whole race of 
man, prefatory to taking up the history of a single fam- 
ily, namely, that of Abraham, in the twelfth chapter. 
From the twelfth to the end of the twenty-seventh 


chapter, we have a general account of this entire fam- 
ily, prefatory to taking up a single branch of this family 
ill the twenty-eighth chapter, namely, that of Jacob 
and his descendants ; which is thence continued through 
all the historical Scriptures. 

But I wish particularly to call your attention to this 
circumstance, namely, that if the first verse be a pref- 
ace to the whole chapter, then it recites a work which 
was wrought before the first day. If it is not a preface, 
then it recites the first work of the first day. 

But the work recited is the creation of the heavens ; 
of the sun, the moon, and the stars as well as of the 

Therefore the heavens [the sun, moon, and stars], were 
created either before the first day, or on the first day. In 
either event, the work wrought upon the heavenly bodies 
on the fourth day was not an account of their creation^ 
inasmuch as that took place on or before the first day. 
What it was.) and what is meant by the making (not 
creating) on that day, I shall endeavor to explain in a 
future lecture. But certainly Geology has nothing to 
say in opposition to the statement that God at the very 
commencement of the world's history created it. As 
to what is meant by creation^ Geology knows nothing. 
Whether God fashioned the Universe out of eternally 
pre-existing matter, or whether he first called it into 
being and then fashioned it, Geology knows not ; and it 
is a question I shall not discuss, as it is foreign to our 
purpose. I will, however, make this remark : That the 
great Hebrew lexicographer Gesenius insists that there 
is included in the root meaning of the word " create " 
the idea of cutting out., or carving^ or separating. This 


has no bearing upon the question as to whether or not 
God made the Universe from nothing ; but it ma^ seem 
to imply that in the beginning the heavenly bodies were 
one mass of matter ; and that in the process of world- 
building, God separated them into the various suns and 
systems into which they are now unquestionably divided. 
And moreover, it is in wonderful accord with the reve- 
lations of the spectroscope, which indicates that the 
matter of all the worlds is homogeneous, consisting of 
the very same materials, and may well have been sup- 
posed to have been in the beginning one great homo- 
geneous mass^ out of which they were formed and 
ranged in the order hi which we see them. 

In what condition the earth and tlie worlds were at 
their creation, whether in an intensely heated and fused 
state or not, or whether in a gaseous state or not, the 
Scripture does not inform us. Yet, as we have seen in 
the previous Lecture, there is evident, and indeed de- 
mojistrative^ proof that the earth was at one time fused. 
But while the text of Scripture does not say in so many 
words that the earth was fused, yet it is on the supposi- 
tion that it ivas so, that we can most readily account for 
what we are told concerning its condition during the 
first and second days, and indeed through the whole six 
days of creation. 

Let us now take up the second verse, and note its 
statements very carefully. It reads thus : " And the 
earth was without form, and void; and darkness was 
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God 
moved upon the face of the waters." Here are no less 
than five circumstances, which I wish to examine sepa- 
rately. First, it is said that the "earth was without 


form." This cannot mean that it was absolutely without 
any shape ; for being a material object, it must have 
had some shape or form. But a different rendering of 
the Hebrew word, tohu., translated " without form," is 
decidedly preferable. Gesenius tells us that it means 
waste ; and this rendering is adopted in the recent re- 
vised translation. And surely nothing more waste and 
dreary can be well conceived than the earth in the be- 
ginning, when but recently advanced from a fused state, 
and when a barren landscape stretched out intermin- 

The next statement is, that at this time the earth was 
void, that is, empty. The words are, ''and the earth 
was without form, and void." Void of what? Not of 
dead matter. The earth was in existence. All the 
material elements which enter into its composition were 
then in being. It was not void of matter ; but it WAS 
void of life. 

Geology has naught to say against this. It has no 
record whatever of any kind of life at that early period. 
And there could have been none ; such, at least, as now 
exists. For it was not originally in the waves of the 
fiery ocean, nor in the volatilized substances and vapors 
of the original atmosphere. 

How then could there have been any life ? How could 
it have any existence, until the Creator, the living God, 
spake, and called it into being ? Moses does not conflict 
with geologists when he tells us that at this early period 
the earth was void of all manner of life. 

That the earth was immersed in water soon after this? 
appears from the following words, that " darkness was 
upon the face of the deep " ; and that the " Spirit of God 


moved upon the face of the waters." Indeed, here is a 
double assertion by Moses that the whole world was in 
the beginning submerged in water. 

He teaches moreover that this submerged condition 
continued until the beginning of the third day. For 
(as you may remember) it was on the third day that 
God said, " Let the waters under the heavens be gath- 
ered together unto one place, and let the dry laiid ap- 
pear.'^' That is to say, geologically, that the earth con- 
tinued in a submerged condition until the close of the 
Archasan Era. 

But before giving the testimony of Geology concern- 
ing the submerged condition of the world during this 
era, I will answer two questions which may arise in the 
minds of some of you. One is as to how this sub- 
merged condition of the world comports with what we 
have already shown in our previous lecture as to the 
earth's being a ball of fire in the beginning. The 
second is as to where this great mass of water could 
have come from. We answer, that we may very reas- 
onably suppose that the earth's condition at the begin- 
ning was very like the present condition of the sun. 
It is on all hands admitted that the sun has an immense ^ 
atmosphere. Its magnitude has not, so far as I am 
aware, been accurately ascertained. It has been com- 
puted to be about one-seventh of the sun's diameter; 
that is to say, it extends more than fifty thousand 
miles in every direction from the body of the sun. 
The outer edge of this atmosphere becomes visible to 
us during a total eclipse of the sun, forming what is 
called the corona around the circumference of the moon. 
The spectroscope, too, assures us positively of the exist- 


ence of this atmosphere, and, moreover, that it is full of 
a variety of volatilized substances. In like manner, 
the earth must have had its luminous atmosphere in 
th^ beginning. In addition to the atmospheric air which 
now exists, this atmosphere must have contained all the 
waters of the ocea7i in a state of vapor ^ besides a great 
variety of other substances which were converted into 
gases by the intense heat of the globe. I say, it must 
have contained all the waters of the ocean, for it is plain 
that all the waters now in existence must have been in 
existence then. But when the earth was hot, they must 
have existed in a state of vapor ; and this vapor must, 
together with the atmospheric air, h.^^ formed an 
immense atmosphere enveloping the globe. And if the 
magnitude of this atmosphere bore a similar relation 
to the bulk of the earth that the sun's atmosphere does 
to the bulk of the smi^ it must have been some six 
hundred miles, if not one thousand miles, in depth. 

But the earth, being only the one and one-quarter 
millionth part as large as the sun, would cool incom- 
parably more rapidly than the sun. And as now we 
see spots on the sun's face, hundreds of times as large 
as this earth, and which are evidently, as we have shown 
in the former lecture, huge masses of land forming 
there ; so, in a small fraction probably of the time which 
has elapsed since the earth's creation, a crust of land 
must have formed upon the eartli's surface. But as 
soon as this took place, the radiation of heat from the 
earth's body would have been very sensibly diminished. 
Then all such volatilized substances as iron, nickel, 
cobalt, and the like, which must then have existed in 
the earth's atmosphere, since they are now known to 


exist ill the atmosphere of the sun, would be the first 
to condense and to fall to the earth, inasmuch as they 
require a very intense heat to keep them in a gaseous 
state. And by and by, the watery vapor^ five hundred 
to one thousand miles away on the outer edge of the 
earth's atmosphere, would begin to condense ; and 
eve7itiially (after a long, long time, and after many 
ineffectual struggles to descend to the earth), as the 
outer surface of the earth's body continued to throw off 
its heat, this condensed vapor would reach the earth 
and begin to form water. And as vast ages rolled along, 
this process would continue with ever-increasing rapid- 
ity, so that at length, falling everywhere, over the whole 
surface of the earth, the earth must, at length, necessa- 
rily become entirely submerged. For it must be re- 
membered that there could have been no mountains of 
any size, even of a few hundred feet in altitude, in the 
first ages ; but the whole world must have been almost 
a plane ; because even when the crust of the earth 
attained a mile or two of thickness, it would be so 
shaken by the fires beneath that there would be no 
permanent uplifts upon its surface. 

But there was abundance of vapor in the atmosphere 
to furnish water to cover tlie earth to a great depth. 
For it must be remembered tliat even at this day in 
which we now live, the ocean covers about three-fourths 
of the whole surface of the earth ; and while its depth 
in some places is eight or nine miles, its average depth 
is some two or three miles. Consequently, if the East- 
ern and Western Continents were at this present time 
all submerged, and levelled into a plane, there is enough 
water in the oceans to cover them and the whole earth 


to a depth of two miles. But, we say, in the very 
nature of things, stai'tiug with the earth as a ball of 
lire, the ocean 7nust at that time have been in tlie 
atmosphere in a state of vapor ; and after the lapse of 
ages the submerged condition of this whole earth must 
necessarUi/ have been brought about. But what does 
Geology testify in regard to this whole primeval period, 
the first two days of Moses^ the Archwan Era of geolo- 
gists ? We answ^er, that while geologists do not profess 
to know but little about it, except that it was of vast 
duration, they are satisfied that the whole earth ivas 
covered throughout this period by the waters of the 
ocean. Dana, speaking of the state of things at the 
close of the Archaean, or the beginning of the Paloeozoic, 
period, or, according to Scriptural reckoning, the begin- 
ning of the third daj^, says that the continents had just 
then hegun to be made. Speaking of a certain portion 
of Canada, and some small tracts of land in the United 
States, he says : " It [that is, the Canadian territory] is 
the beginning of the dry land of North America, the 
07'iginal nucleus of the continent. The smaller Archoean 
areas mentioned [that is, the small tracts in the United 
States,] appear to have been mountain ridges and islands 
in the great continental seas. Europe had its Archa3an 
lands at the same time in Scandinavia, Scotland, Bohe- 
mia, and some other points ; and probably each of the 
other continents was then represented by its spot., or 
spots^ of dry land. All the rest of the sphere., excepting 
these limited areas., was an expanse of ivaters.'^ This, 
remember, was at the beginning of the third day. 
According to Geology, at that time almost the whole 
globe was covered with water. But geologists affirm 


that even those small areas of land had all been formed 
under the water, as appears from the nature of many of 
the rocks, and that they had only a short time before 
that been lifted out of the water. So that the opinion 
of geologists is in full accord with the teaching of God's 
holy Word, that throughout the whole of that vast 
period of time, called in Scripture the first two days of 
creation, and by geologists the Archaean Era, the entire 
earth was submerged beneath the waters. Geologists 
go further than this. They say that all the rocks of this 
period which were not formed by fire, or by fire and 
water combined, were formed under water, by settlings 
from the waters. They say that throughout this period 
there is not a vestige of a land plant of any description, 
much less of any land animal. Everywhere over the 
whole earth there reigned nothing but water, water, 
water. Here, then, is certainly one very clear and re- 
markable coincidence between Scriptural and geological 
teaching. Even unbelievers must admit that. If 
Moses was not inspired, he certainly guessed well when 
he informed us that during the first two days of crea- 
tion, that is, the Archaean period of geologists, the 
earth was immersed in water. 

But he tells us that " Darkness was upon the face of 
the deep." Whence, it will be asked, came this dark- 
ness ? We answer, that at the time the earth was first 
submerged by the waters, it must necessarily have been 
a period of darkness, and after a ivhile^ of utter darkness, 
of darkness blacker than midnight. 

Do you ask. How is this? I answer. It is because, 
when the fiery, glowing earth was firmly crusted over, 
and covered to some depth with waters, the light from 

^IRST DAY. 39 

the earth's body was totally extinguished, and none could 
reach the earth from the sun, nor moon, nor from the stars 
of heaven; not, however, because these bodies did not then 
exist, nor because they did not shine as brightly as they 
do at this moment. But it was because of the immense 
shroud of uncondensed vapor, the greater part of the 
yet unfinished ocean, hundreds of miles in thickness, 
which hung as a black canopy over the entire expanse 
of the waters. And this illimitable expanse of vapor 
did, no doubt, for an immense period of time, as effectu- 
ally shut out the light of the sun and of the heavenly 
bodies from ahove^ as did the earth's crust and the waters 
upon it shut out the light from the fires beneath the 
crust. In the very nature of things, tlien, we say, this 
state of darkness must have existed and have reigned for 
an immense period. 

And Geology has not a word to utter against it. In 
so far as it speaks at all^ it confirms it ; for if we trace 
its intimations that this earth is a cooling ball of fire to 
their source, we shall find the existence of such a period 
an inevitable conclusion from that fact. Besides, the fact 
that so large a proportion of the original living creatures 
long after this time were without eyes is a decided indi- 
cation that in the early ages there was but little use for 
eyes, and consequently that those ages did not enjoy 
anything to compare with that amount of light which 
we now possess, when all the higher orders of living 
creatures have the power of sight. 

But this darkness, the Scripture says, " was upon the 
face of the deep.'' What is the meaning of the word 
" deep " ? According to our present use of tlie words, 
"the deep" means simply the sea, or the ocean. And 


we speak of the sea, or the ocean, as the deep because of 
the depth of the waters. But the word here translated, 
deep, is Tehom, whereas the Hebrew word for the ad- 
jective deep is not Tehom^ or anytliing akin to it. Tehom 
does, in one of its derived meanings, seem sometimes to 
refer to depth in the ordinary sense of that word. 

But Gesenius informs us that Tehom is a poetic 
word, and that its primary signification is "a mass 
of raging waters," being derived from the word houm^ 
which means to throw into commotion. It is true 
that Tehom does not always imply this state of rage, 
but it does so commonly. There is no such word as 
" ocean " in the Bible. And although the word " sea " 
occurs some four hundred times in the Old Testament, 
yet in no case is it ever the translation of Tehom. 
It is not improbable that the word Tehom was selected 
to represent the ocean of this period, because of its radi- 
cal meaning ; and that the deep here spoken of was, as 
the word strictly implies, a mass of raging waters. 
And certainly there is every reason to believe that the 
ocean in the beginning was indeed in a state of wild 
and often of tremendous commotion. For remember, 
that at this time the crust of the earth was thin. And 
if now that the internal fires are so many miles away 
from us, they sometimes make the earth's frame quiver, 
throw down and engulf cities, and roll the ocean in 
upon the land, What a constant rocking must they have 
kept up in the crust of the earth at this early period, 
and consequent raging in the waters that covered it. 
And then what a ferment would be produced over 
immense areas by the frequent volcanic eruptions of the 
period — frequent, I mean, as compared with the present; 


and withal what tremendous winds must have prevailed, 
stirring the ocean to its depths, and lashing it into fury! 
For then there must have been something like what we 
now call trade winds, except that the trade winds of 
that period would have arisen wholly from the earth's 
revolution upon its axis, and would have blown un- 
ceasingly in a westerly direction. But they would have 
constantly met with a highly excited state of the atmos- 
phere, arising from constant currents of warm air from 
the earth meeting with cool currents from the outward 
atmosphere. And as now, with our limited atmosphere, 
storms and hurricanes prevail more at sea than on the 
land, and are more terrific in hot countries than in cold 
ones, we cannot even imagine the tremendous howling 
storms which must have rushed frantically over the 
globe in that day, when the atmosphere was so immense, 
when the whole earth was sea, and when the heat 
emanating from the earth's entire body was so manifold 
greater than it is at present. Geology, then, does not 
contradict, but reason certainly justifies, the supposition 
that the word Teliom was aptly chosen, on account of 
its root meaning to express the condition of the ocean 
of this period. And as Geology does tell us of rocks 
of this period formed by the action of fire, and by the 
combined action of fire and water, we may imagine how 
they came into being through volcanic action and the 
angry flood ; and how this same flood ground the rocks 
to pieces and fitted the elements to form the sedimen- 
tary rocks of the following and less disturbed period, — 
the second day of the Scriptures, the latter part of the 
ArcJicean time of oncologists. 

The next statement of the Scriptures, after the asser- 


tion that darkness was upon the deep, is that "the 
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." In 
these words there is a circumstance to be specially 
noted. It is the declaration that the Spirit moved upon 
the waters. What is meant by the declaration that the 
Spirit of God, the Third Person of the blessed Trinity, 
moved upon the waters ? Does it mean simply that he 
glided over the waters in the dark, with no special ob- 
ject in so doing ? That could hardly be the meaning of 
Moses. The Holy Spirit must have had some purpose in 
moving. What luas it ? We answer that we find the 
word " moved," and kindred words, such as " moving," 
" moves," and the like, occurring seventy-two times in 
the Old Testament ; and yet the word in the Hebrew is 
never Tauhap\ except in this single instance. Wher- 
ever else in Scripture the sacred writers express the 
idea of moving^ they always use some other word than 
rauliaph to convey that idea. In other Avords, rauhaph 
is never translated moved in any other place in the 
Scriptures. Does not this fact alone render it doubtful 
whether " moved " is the proper rendering here. But 
again, the great Hebrew lexicographer Gesenius, per- 
haps the greatest Hebrew scholar of modern times, 
gives no such meaning as moved to rauhaph ; but 
especially notes that, in accordance with the radical 
meaning of the tvord, it means, in this particular instance, 
" brooded.^'' He declares that it is here used in refer- 
ence to " the Spirit of God as brooding over and vivify- 
ing the chaotic mass of the earth." And thus it was 
interpreted by the highest authorities who lived two 
hundred and more years ago, — scholars who knew 
nothing whatever of Geology, and were guided simply 


by their knowledge of Scripture and the Hebrew lan- 
guage. Bishop Patrick, the author of the Standard 
Critical Commentary upon the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures, lived just two hundred years ago, and in inter- 
preting this passage of Scripture, says, " The word we 
here translate moved,, signifies, literally,, brooded upon 
the waters, as a hen doth upon her eggs " ; thus clearly 
showing that he,, too, regarded this word as signifying 
that at this time the Spirit of God infused that life into 
the waters, of which the whole earth had previously 
been empty. 

In like manner the great poet and scholar John Mil- 
ton, in his "Paradise Lost," addresses the Spirit of God, 
and thus interprets the meaning of the word translated 
" moved " in this passage of Scripture. " Thou," he says, 
" from the first wast present, and with mighty wings out- 
spread, dove-like, satst brooding on the vast abyss, and 
mad'st it pregnmit^'; in other words, infused life into it. 
We have, then, in these words the assertion by Moses 
that toward the close of the first day, and consequently 
long before the close of the Archaean period, life began 
on this globe ; and further, that it began in the waters, 
not, be it observed, upon the dry land. How does this 
comport with the teachings of Geology ? 

We answer : It is in perfect accord with its teachings. 
In the first place. Geology tells us that all life, both ani- 
mal and vegetable, began in the waters. Dana reiterates 
this again and again. Speaking of the early portion of 
the second geological period, the beginning of the third 
day of Scripture, he says : " The plants of the period 
that have left traces in the rocks were all sea-iueeds. 
Among animals, the sub-kingdoms of radiates, mollusks, 


and articulates were represented by water species, and 
by them only." Even later than this, he says that " the 
life of these periods was, as far as evidence has been col- 
lected, from the American or foreign rocks, ivholly ma- 
rine ; no trace of a fresh-water species of plant or animal 
has been found. Indeed, all geologists agree that through- 
out the Archaean period, the first two days of Holy Scrip- 
ture, the earth was entirely submerged. Consequently, 
it necessarily follows that if any life at all existed during 
that period, it 7nust have existed in the water. But 
did it exist at all during this period, according to the 
testimony of Geology? It asserts very decidedly that 
it believes that it did. It says that of this vast tract of 
time it knows but little, that it cannot tell how soon life 
began ; but it refers to facts which indicate that life be- 
gan far, far back into the dim recesses of Archsean ages. 
Geologists point to great masses of iron ore, to a great 
abundance of limestone, and vast beds of graphite formed 
during Archcean times. And as iron ores, limestones, 
and graphite of after-ages are formed from the remains 
of plants and animals, they infer that marine plants and 
animals of a very simple type did exist long before the 
close of Archaean times, and that, too, in great ahmdance. 
So here, agai7i, the Scriptural and geological records are 
in e7itire harmony. The next circumstance related in 
order upon the first day by the sacred writer is the ap- 
pearance of light in the midst of the darkness. This has 
ever been a great stumbling-block to Scripture readers, 
and even to commentators. 

What ^vas this light ? they say. Where did it come 
from before the sun, the moon, and the stars were cre- 
ated ? They overlook the fact, to which I have already 

To face p. 44. 


called your attention, that the very first words of the 
record declare the creation of the heaveiis as well as the 
earth in the hegmning^ and that this must mean that they 
were created not later than the beginning of the first 
day. When we come to consider the work of th.e fourth 
day, we hope to explain to you how it happened that the 
sun, moon, and stars then began to serve us for " signs, 
and for seasons, and for days, and for years." But the 
light here spoken of as appearing on the first day was 
7iot a different light from sunlight. The sun, created 
long ages before, the moon, and the stars also, were shin- 
ing in the heavens with full power upon the dark vapory 
mass, which both overshadowed the all-pervading sea, 
and also for so long a period maintained the reign of 
darkness over the surface of the deep. But the process 
of condensation in the outer edges of this mass was ever 
going on, adding from age to age more and more to the 
waters of the ocean, ayid allowing the rays of the sun to 
penetrate deeper atid deeper into its gloomy recesses^ until 
by and hy it came doiun^ dow7i to the very surface of the 
waters ; and thus light obtained a footing where for so 
long a time there had been naught but thick darkness, 
G-eology has nothing to say against this; but reason tells us 
that this must certainly have been the course of events 
in the passage of this globe from its primeval state as a 
ball of fire. 

After the appearance of light upon the globe, the 
Scripture says, " God saw the light, that it was good." 
And indeed it zs good; an incalculable blessing to liv- 
ing things both in the animal and in the vegetable world ; 
but most of all, because it is a type of God's Son, who in 
the long subsequent ages was to shine upon the moral 


darkness of the world, and to illuminate us with the 
'' light of ?(fe." But, says the sacred penman, " God 
divided the light from the darkness. And God called 
the light Day, and the darkness he called Night." No 
doubt the earth rotated upon its axis at that early period 
even as it does 7wiv ; and night would prevail wherever 
the body of the earth was turned away from the sun, 
even as at this present moment. But it is not probable 
that there was always dat/ then, as there is now, on those 
parts of the earth which were turned toward the sun. 
For frequently., as we have every reason to believe, per- 
haps generally, heavy masses of clouds would so obscure 
the sun as to make it midnight at midday. It was only, 
we may suppose, at irregular intervals that light pierced 
the clouds so as to give light even in the daytime. Nev- 
ertheless there luere periods of light, AM^^ei'er irregular, as 
well as periods of darkness. These periods of light 
were brought about by the earth's rotation. Whenever 
they occurred, it was day. At all other times it was 
night. On this subject, however, Geology is silent^ and 
does not even claim to know anything. Whether the 
views I have just expressed are true or not does not 
materially affect the question of harmony between 
Scriptural and geological teaching. 

But the Scripture concludes this account of the work 
of the first day of creation by saying that "the even- 
ing and the morning were the^rs^ day." In like man- 
ner, the work of each other day of the creation, includ- 
ing the sixths is followed by the assertion that the 
evening and the morning were that day. It may well 
be asked, Upon the supposition that these days were 
vast geological periods, how could they be said to have 


an evening and a morning? And why is the evening 
made to precede the morning? I will state what ap- 
pears to me to be the most reasonable explanation of 
this matter. It is this : We have seen in the course of 
this lecture that Moses presents the world to us in a 
state of darkness, at or near the first, and of some light 
afterwards. I understand, therefore, the first part of 
this period, when darkness reigned, to be the evening, 
and the latter part of it, when light was introduced, to 
have been the morning. It may be objected to this, 
that there was a period of light at first, when the earth 
was a ball of fire, and consequently that that period was 
not obscure, and therefore could not be called evening, 
because of Its obscurity. But if the first verse be re- 
garded as a preface to the chapter, as it well may be, 
and as I believe it was intended to be, this period of 
light would not be a part of the first day. The first day 
would begin with the second verse. And that verse 
tells us of a period when " darkness [that is, thick dark- 
ness] was upon the deep." Regarding the first verse, 
therefore, as a general preface to the whole chapter, as 
it probably was, all difficulty on the score of the early 
period of light is wholly removed. But even if this 
period of light be regarded, as a part of the first day, it 
may be that although it was absolutely long, it was yet 
relatively so short, as compared with the subsequent 
period of darkness, that it was not considered worthy 
of mention; especially as all thQ following days were to 
have a somewhat similar evening and morning to those 
of the first day. 

But it will be asked. What were the evening and 
the morning of the following days? I answer, that the 


explanation of this is connected with the subject of 
the vapor which remained so long as a great veil over 
the earth, and of the certain existence of which, in the 
beginning, I have already given you some account. 
Suffice it to say at present, that there is reason to be- 
lieve that this vapor was never entirely cleared away 
for a long, long time ; perhaps not until the time of the 
flood. Wh^/ it is reasonable to think so, I hope to ex- 
plain hereafter. It must be remembered, however, that 
this immense mass of vapor, representing all the waters 
of the oceans, of the lakes and rivers, and of the fount- 
ains imder the earth., began to condense when the earth 
was first well crusted over, and probably continued con- 
densing, gradually more and more, throughout the whole 
six days of creation^ and even afterwards. But if this 
were so, then the beginning of the second day was a 
period of obscurity as compared with the close of that 
day. The beginning of the third day was obscure as 
compared with its close ; and so on through all the fol- 
lowing days. Suppose the light at the end of the first 
day was equal to the light which the earth derives from 
the moon at the period of full moon. And suppose 
that on each day, as the vapors continued to condense, 
the light increased in a tenfold ratio. Then at the end 
of the second day the light of the sun in the daytime 
would have been equal to that of ten full moons. At 
the end of the third day it would have equalled that of 
one hundred full moons; the fourth day would have 
closed with the light of one thousand full moons ; the 
fifth, with that of ten thousand full moons ; the sixth 
day, with that of one hundred thousand full moons. 
But the sunlight at this day in which we now live is 


equal to that of three hundred thousand full moons — so 
astronomers tell us, and so it can be mathematically 
demonstrated. Consequently, the morning of the sixth 
day would have closed with but the third part of the 
light which we now have ; and its evenmg would have 
begun with only the thirtieth part of it. In this view of 
the matter we may, I think, ivell understand what is 
meant by the evening and the morning of each day ; 
inasmuch as each period at its commencement was one 
of darkness^ as compared with its close. 

Before closing I would call your attention to the exact 
order of events as set forth by the sacred writer ; an 
order, which as far as I have been able to observe, is 
carried out minutely through the entire work of the six 
days ; and which consequently makes the harmony with 
the geological record all the more wonderful and con- 
vincing to those who are weak in the faith. First, ob- 
serve that according to the Scriptures, God created the 
heavens., then the earth. But almost all the heavenly 
bodies that we see are suns. And if, as is 'probable, the 
planets are the children of the sun ; then to say that 
God created first the heavens, then the earth, is the 
natural order of events. The parent first, the children 
afterwards. Next in order follows the account of a 
waste and empty earth. This of course would be after 
the creation. And it would also precede the period 
when darkness reigned upon the deep, because it 
would have been waste and empty as soon as the earth's 
crust was formed; but there would not have been at 
once complete darkness. For the thinness of the 
earth's crust would have been the occasion of frequent 
yolcanic eruptions, which would have tended to mitigate 


the gloom. And besides, the iramense body of heated 
atmospheric air and carbonic acid gas which then ex- 
isted would have absorbed a vast amount of the vapor 
and permitted some light to reach the earth from the 
sun> After this, however, as the earth's crust increased 
in thickness, there would also be an increase in the 
depth of the ocean, and an increased condensation of 
the watery vapors of the atmosphere, which would 
cause darkness upon the deep. So that this event, too, 
occurs in due order. But as time rolled on, the waters 
would lose a portion of their heat preparatory to the 
next event stated in Scripture, namely, the brooding of 
the Spirit of God upon the waters, and his filling them 
with life. These first living creatures doubtless had no 
need of lights as they were of the simplest character, 
and we find that now clams, oysters, and even moles 
have no need of it. But by and by the time would 
come when the vapors would condense so as to allow 
light to reach the world from the sun ; and as the earth 
was already in motion upon its axis, it would cause a 
dividing of the light from the darkness, and make the 
beginning of day and of night. Thus, in due order, 
ended the work of the first day. 

But, in conclusion, let me call your attention to some 
very wonderful things in connection with this Scrip- 
tural record of the first day. Observe, in the first 
place, that it is in no respect in conflict with geological 
teachings. Observe, secondly, how it harmonizes with 
the teachings of Natural Science and of Geology in a 
variety of particulars. First, Natural Science and Geol- 
ogy lead us to believe that this world was once a ball 
of fire. Moses does not sai/ so in so many words ; but 


we have seen how what he does say harmonizes with 
that idea and presupposes it to be a fact. Thirdly, 
both Geology and Scripture assert that the work of the 
creation was not continuous, but broken up into definite 
periods. And although at first sight there seems to be 
a discrepancy as to the number of the periods, yet we 
have seen that Geology speaks of the earth alone, and 
of life periods, and that Scripture and Geology agree as 
to the number of the life periods. But that the two 
other periods of which the Scriptures speak were such 
as, from the nature of the case. Geology could not know 
anything about, yet it asserts that there was ample 
time for them. Fourthly, Geology teaches that the 
Archaean period was immensely long, perhaps as long as 
the entire period which has elapsed since. Scripture 
says that it did embrace two days, two geological 
periods, — one-third of the whole number which elapsed 
during the creation. Fifthly, Geology says that the 
whole earth was in the earliest ages buried in water. 
Moses says the same thing. Sixthly, Geology says that 
this state of things continued until the close of the 
Archaean period, which I have stated, time and again, 
corresponded with the first two days of Scripture. 
Scripture also says the same thing as to the length of 
time during which this submergence of the entire globe 
continued. Lastly, Moses and Geology entirely agree 
in stating that life began in the luaters. But I ask any 
reasonable person to say whether this coincidence be- 
tween the teachings of Moses and natural science in so 
many particulars in regard to the original condition of 
this globe, and their conflict in no particular, would not 
be a very wonderful thing, if Moses were not inspired. 



Would it not be still more wonderful that Moses, with- 
out that knowledge of natural science which we possess, 
and of Geology in particular, could, if uninspired^ have 
so struck the straight line of truth, and followed it in 
exact order., without the slightest deviation from it? 
And viewing the subject, not from a Christian, but from 
a geological, standpoint, does not a consideration of the 
account of this first day alone make it difficult to con- 
ceive that Moses did not receive some enlightenment 
from God in regard to so profoundly mysterious a sub- 

To face, p. 53. 

Lectuee hi. 


SECOND DAY. — GEN. I. 6-8. 

T~N our last lecture we noted the fact that according 
-L to Scripture the work of creation was not continu- 
ous, but broken up into distinct and well-defined 
periods^ six in number. We showed that Geology also 
teaches us that the earth's history is broken up into dis- 
tinct periods; of which, however, it numbers onXj four. 
The reason why Geology numbers but four is, that it 
studies only the structure of the earth itself, and the 
vegetable and animal tribes that have dwelt upon it. 
The Scripture, in like manner, tells us of only four 
such periods. But the Scripture goes beyond the struc- 
ture of the globe itself, and further tells us of two days, 
or periods, which Geology could not possibly know 
anything about, inasmuch as during their time two 
great operations were performed upon the atmosphere. 
So that there is here really no conflict whatever. But 
I also showed you that Geology admits that its first 
two eras were each of them long, enough for the extra 
period of which the Scripture informs us, — one of them, 
the second day of Scripture, occurring in its Archaean i 


the other, the fourth day of Scripture, in its Palaeozoic 

We also gave you our reasons for considering the 
first verse of Genesis i. as a preface to the whole chap- 
ter, rather than as a part of the first day. We then 
proceeded to examine the work of the first day, and 
called your attention to the fact that the Scriptures 
declare that in the beginning of that day the earth was 
utterly waste ; that it was void of life ; and that after 
a time darkness reigned everywhere upon the face of 
the angry deep. By and by, however, the Spirit of 
God went forth and brooded upon the waters, infusing 
into it the elements of life ; probably both of vegetable 
and of animal life. The next step was the in-coming of 
light, which was necessarily followed by alternations of 
periods of light and darkness, causing the succession of 
day and night. We also explained how it was that this 
long period of the first day could with propriety be 
said to have its evening and its morning. In like man- 
ner, we explained how it was that all the remaining 
days of the six had each its evening and morning. It 
is worthy of note, that the two great ivorks of this first 
day were the introduction, first of life^ and then of lights 
into the world. In all this we showed that there is no 
conflict w^hatever with geological teaching ; but, on the 
contrary, a remarkable correspo7idence with it in a vari- 
ety of particulars. 

We now come to consider the teachings of Holy 
Scripture as to the work of the second and third days ; 
and first, as to that of the second day, the latter part of 
the Arclioeayi Era of geologists. We have already re- 
peatedly said that Geology, whose researches are con- 


fined to an examination of the teaching of the rocks^ 
knows nothing about this period ; inasmuch as the work 
wrought on this day had nothing whatever to do with 
the rocks or their contents. We shall not therefore in- 
quire as to its harmony with geological teaching. But, 
regarding the earth as having advanced from a state of 
fusion to that condition of submergence and of incipient 
life and light in which it was at the close of the first 
great period, or day, of Scripture, we shall again inquire 
whether, in the very nature of things^ the events which 
the Scriptures inform us as having occurred on the sec- 
ond day, are not events which could not have happened 
before that time, but must naturally be expected to take 
place at that time. The work of this day is summed 
up in three verses, which I will repeat, so that we may 
have them distinctly before our minds. They read 
thus: "And God said. Let there be a firmament in the 
midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from 
the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided 
the waters which were under the firmament from the 
waters which were above the firmament : and it was so. 
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the even- 
ing and the morning were the second day." 

There is here, you perceive, 07ie single object which 
God is said to have made on the second da}^, namely, 
the firmament. And we are told of its position^ that it 
was in the midst of the waters ; and also of one purpose 
which it subserved, namely, the dividing of the waters 
which were under the firmament from the waters which 
were above the firmament. But what was the firma- 
ment which God is said to have made on the second 
day? The marginal rendering is "expansion." But 


what is the expansion, or what can it be, but the sky? 
That it does mean the sky, or some part of it, is con- 
firmed by the eighth verse, in wliich we are told that 
God called the firmament Heaven. Undoubtedly, then, 
the firmament is lieaven. But this word " heaven " is, of 
itself, ambiguous. For the Scriptures speak of no less 
than three distinct heavens. Ordinarily, in speaking of 
heaven, we mean the special abode of God and his holy 
angels ; and this is called by St. Paul the third heavens. 
It is impossible, however, to suppose that this is the 
heavens here spoken of, which was something made 
here upon earth, and situated in the midst of the waters. 
And for the same reason it cannot mean the region of 
the stars, which are also called heaven in Scripture. 
And besides, those heavens are, in the first verse of this 
chapter, declared to have been already created. But 
the region of the atmosphere is also called heaven ; as, 
in the twentieth verse of this very chapter, God is said 
to have called for the formation of fowls of various 
kinds, which might '"fly above the earth in the open 
firmaraent of heaven."" But the fowls fly in the air; 
consequently, as it could not have been God's own 
dwelling-place, nor yet the region of the stars, it must 
be the air that is here spoken of as the firmament, or 
heaven, that was formed on the second day. But this 
is still further evident from the object for wliich this 
this firmament was formed, namely, to separate the 
waters which were under it from the waters which were 
above it. Now, the waters below the firmament can 
only mean the waters on the earth; and the waters 
above the firmament can only mean the waters in the 
sky; consequently, the firmament here spoken of as 


separating the waters of the earth from the waters of 
the sky must mean the atmosphere, and cannot mean 
anything else. 

But what are we to understand by the assertion that 
the atmosphere was made on the second day? We 
answer, that it is evidently impossible that there 
could have been anything like such an atmosphere as 
we now have for long ages after the creation of the 
world, and therefore not before the second day. The 
sun has an immense atmosphere at this day ; but it is 
not like ours. The spectroscope shows us that it is full 
of innumerable substances, perhaps hundreds of them, 
many of them metals, in a gaseous state. And such, 
no doubt, was the atmosphere of the earth in the 
beginning. But all these various substances were not 
only commingled, but in a state of iyitense commotion. 

The intense excitement of the sun's atmosjjhere may 
be faintly imagined from this circumstance : that a 
flame has been seen to shoot out on the sun's face 
eighty thousand miles in ten minutes. Here, on earth, 
no tornado ever blows two hundred miles in an hour. 
What, then, shall we think of a blast which would ex- 
tend eight thousand miles in one minute? More than 
twice the distance across the Atlantic Ocean in sixty 
seconds ! It is true that there tvas nothing like this in- 
tense excitement in the vapors which surrounded the 
earth at the close of the first day. But throughout that 
period, heated as the earth then was, the excitement 
must have been very great, so as to keep the elements 
of the vapory shroud which girded the earth, and the 
atmosphere which was mixed with it, in a constant 
whirl; so that for a long, long time the whole vapory 


and atmospheric mass would be in a state of such con- 
stant agitation that there could be no permanent separa- 
tion of its elements. 

But it is an eternal law of physics that in all fluids 
whatever, when in a state of moderate composure, the 
heavier substances will descend, and the lighter ascend. 
As, therefore, the earth's body became less heated, the 
excitement of the vapory and atmospheric mass which 
surrounded it must also diminish. The air which now 
is, and which consists of oxygen and nitrogen, with a 
small body of carbonic acid gas, all mingled together, 
must have been in existence then ; but owing to the 
great ferment which was kept up, it was thoroughly 
mingled with that vast mass of uncondensed vapor 
which surrounded the globe. But there was then im- 
mensely mo7'e carbonic acid gas mingled with the atmos- 
phere than there is now; and as it and atmospheric 
air are both decidedly heavier than vapor, it would nec- 
essarily follow, m the course of time^ that they would 
gradually settle to the bottom, as the whole mass of air 
and vapor combined became less disturbed. And while 
they settle to the bottom, of course the vapor^ being 
lighter, would ascend. You have all seen this principle 
verified, time and again, in a lamp containing water 
and oil. Shake the lamp for some time, and the two 
elements of oil and water will be mingled together. 
But so soon as you set the lamp down and let it rest, 
the water, being heavier, will all sink to the bottom, 
and the oil, being lighter, will float upon the top. 

And thus you will be enabled to see how it was that 
when God called the firmament into being it was sit- 
uated in the midst of the waters, and also how it was 


that it seemed to separate the waters which were under 
the firmament from the waters wliich were above the 
firmament. I must confess, however, that this state- 
ment of Moses, that the air separated the waters under 
the firmament from those above, was a great stumbling- 
block to me for many long years, because it seemed 
to me that the little water there was in the air had as- 
cended there from the earth, and that it existed in the 
form of clouds wliich were really not above the air, but 
only at the utmost a mile or two from the earth's sur- 
face. But remember, that at this time, that is, the sec- 
ond day, there luas no visible earth, but that it was 
spread all over with one vast unbroken sheet of water. 
Remember, too, that at this time probably not more 
than one-half of all the waters of the oceans had con- 
densed ; but that still one-half^ or more^ of all that now 
constitutes the oceans and other waters hung hundreds 
of miles aloft in a state of vapor. So that as the heavier 
atmosphere settled from the mass of vapor above, it 
must of course have rested everywhere beneath upon 
the waters ; and eventually, when pretty much the 
whole 7nass of the air had thus settled, the result would 
be that it would lie directly between the condensed 
waters of the ocean below and the z^wcondensed waters 
of the ocean above. And thus it was that the firma- 
ment was, when God made it, in the midst of the 
waters, and did separate the waters which were under 
the firmament from the waters which were above the 
firmament. It remains that I should direct your at- 
tention to the fact that God tells us that the making of 
the firmament occupied one entire day. And those 
days, remember, were periods of immense and almost 


inconceivable duration. It may seem very strange that 
such a vast period of time should have been occupied in 
forming one single object, and that so apparently sim- 
ple an object as the atmosphere. But it is only reason- 
able to expect that after the atmosphere began to be 
formed it would do so very slowly. For the storms of 
the first day, which kept the air and vapor mixed, did 
not cea>ie all at once at the close of the day. For ages 
afterwards the same causes which produced them in the 
beginning would continue to produce them ; only, how- 
ever, with a very slow and gradual abatement. I have 
hardly a doubt that even throughout the third and 
fourth days of Scripture, and perhaps later still, storms 
swept over this earth and over the seas, such as we have 
no conception of. And as the vapor which originally 
surrounded the earth only very gradually condensed.^ 
and probably had not finished doing so until after the 
creation of man, so the carbonic acid gas and atmos- 
pheric air which were originally mingled with the vapor 
could only subside very gradually, and would continue 
to be mingled with it more or less after the lapse of 
ages from the time when their subsidence commenced. 

But what has been said in explanation of the time 
and manner in which the firmament, or atmosphere, was 
formed, is based upon the assumption that this earth 
was originally, and for vast ages afterwards, surrounded 
by an enormous shroud of vapor, probably hundreds of 
miles in thickness. It was upon this assumption, also, 
that I explained in the previous lecture the succession 
of evening and morning during the six days of the 
creation. Indeed, the explanation of almost all the 
works of the first day are based upon this supposition, 


It is important, therefore, that I should fulfil the prom- 
ise given in my second lecture, that I would recur to 
the subject, and show what assurance we have that the 
existence of such a vaporous mass in the beginning was 
really a fact ; and, moreover, that there is satisfactory 
proof that it continued in a gradually diminishing vol- 
ume for a long time, even perhaps until after the crea- 
tion of man. 

We say, then, first, that the existence of vast oceans, 
miles in depth, over about three-fourths of the surface 
of this globe at this moment, is an unquestionable fact. 
Secondly, we say that no one can doubt that the 
matter which constitutes these oceans has existed from 
the beginning. The waters which now constitute the 
oceans existed somewhere on this globe, or near it, when 
the earth was made. It must have been somewhere 
when this earth was a ball of fire. But it is impossible 
that it could then have existed in the form of water ; 
because the intense heat would necessarily have caused 
it to evaporate. In such a heated state of this globe 
the oceans' waters must necessarily have existed in a 
state of vapor. But that vapor could not have existed 
in the bowels of the earth, because the materials of 
which the earth is composed being so much heavier 
than the vapor, it could not have penetrated one inch 
below its surface. But the volume of this vapor must 
have been so great that it could not possibly lie close to 
the earth. Convert all the waters of the ocean at this 
moment into vapor, and they must inevitably form a 
vast winding-sheet, extending hundreds of miles^ above 
the globe all over its surface. And if this would be 
the case now^ so must it have been the case then^ If, 


then, we admit that the earth was a ball of fire in the 
beginning, I do not see how it is possible to escape the 
conclusion that at that time the waters of the ocean 
encompassed the earth in a state of vapor hundreds of 
miles in thickness. At first, probably, owing to the 
intense heat, which greatly rarefied the vapor and also 
increased the absorbing power of the atmosphere, this 
vapor was transparent. But when the earth's crust was 
formed, and its body began to cool, this vapor would 
necessarily begin to condense, and form water, which 
would eventually cover the surface of the whole globe. 
But it would take a long time for so vast a volume to 
condense ; for remember that for many, many ages 
afterward the earth was a warm body, even at its poles. 
And this, as a matter of course, would retard the con- 
densation of the vapor. And there is good reason to 
believe that if it had not been for the waters of the 
flood, a very considerable portion of that original vapor 
would have continued uncondensed even until this day. 
There is an analogical arguinent bearing on this sub- 
ject, and which, with me at least, has great weight to 
prove that the earth was originally, and for a long time, 
surrounded by the vaporous mass of which I speak. It 
is this : This earth is not an isolated body ; it is a mem- 
ber of a homogeneous system. Originally sprung, as it 
is most probable, from the body of the parent sun, it un- 
questionably has sister-planets encircling that orb along 
with itself. Now, as we know the constitution of our 
own bodies from what we know of that of other human 
bodies, and as all human beings sprung from the same 
parents, run through the same general course of infancy, 
youth, manhood, and age, so may we well suppose that 


the planets passed through the same general experience, 
and we may argue from the condition of one to that of 
another. Look, then, to the heavenly bodies, — the plan- 
ets, I mean, — and inquire wliat their experience is in 
reference to the vaporous envelope. 

Let Mercury give her experience first ; she is nearest 
the sun. Has she any vapor about her ? She is so near 
the sun that she can hardly be examined as accurately 
as some others ; but there is good reason to believe that 
she is enveloped in vapor : because if the bodi/ of the 
planet were visible to the telescope, there would be spots 
on its body, as we with our unaided eyes can very 
clearly see spots in the moon. It is true that spots have 
been seen in Mercury, but very rarely. Astronomers 
had for a long time been observing it before any one 
ever succeeded in detecting a spot. This shows that the 
body of the planet is rarely seen, and consequently as- 
tronomers very naturally have inferred that it is encom- 
passed by a dense, cloudy vapor, and perhaps that, with 
this screen, it is quite habitable notwithstanding its 
nearness to the sun. 

Venus comes next in order. It is of all planets near- 
est to the earth, and at the same time it is almost equal 
to the earth, both in size and density. There seems to 
be no doubt but that it is completely enveloped in cloudy 
vapors. Although spots have been seen on the planet, 
they are not thought to be the bodi/ of the planet, but are 
attributed to clouds. Herschel expressed a doubt as to 
whether the hod^ of the planet ever had been seen. The 
existence of a cloudy vapor surrounding the body of 
Venus, like that which I have maintained originally sur- 
rounded this earth, is established by its appearance in 


its transits across the sun. For on the occasion of two 
of its transits at least, astronomers observed a faint ring 
of light completely surrounding the planet, on the outer 
edge of its disc. This shows not only the existence of 
a vaporous mass, but also that it is of considerable den- 

Mars is next in order. It is only one-seventh the size 
of this earth, of one-half its density, and more than fifty 
millions of miles more distant from the sun. Owing to 
its small size and greater distance from the sun, it has 
cooled more rapidly than the earth. Its inferior density, 
taken in connection with its inferior mass, indicates that 
it was formed after this earth. It is not so mature a 
planet as this earth, is encompassed by a cloudy vapor, 
but not so entirely as Mercury and Venus. 

Of Uranus and Neptune, owing to their immense dis- 
tance and recent discovery, but little is known. But, 
I ask, Does not the present clouded condition of Mer- 
cury, Venus, and Mars, particularly of the first two, 
strongly confirm the argument already adduced to show 
that such was formerly the condition of this globe? 
We may infer, especially from the density of Venus 
taken in connection with the fact that its distance from 
the sun is less than three-fourths of that of the earth, 
that it is of about the same age as this earth, and possi- 
bly older. The fact that its vapor is still uncondensed, 
gives at least plausibility to the idea that a great and 
final precipitation of the earth's vapory envelope took 
place at the flood; that it was this that supplied the 
water for the great forty days' rain, and that its pre- 
cipitation arose, as the Scripture informs us, from the 
breaking up of the " fountains of the great deep." hj 


which, I suppose, it is meant that a great, perhaps tem- 
porary, upheaving of the oceans' beds threw up on the 
surface the ahiiost icy waters which everywhere, even 
under the equator, lie a short distance below the warm 
surface waters ; thus suddenly chilling the atmosphere, 
and causing an immense precipitation of vapor in the 
form of rain. 

Had I time to speak of the condition of the other 
two planets of the solar sj^stem, Jupiter and Saturn, I 
could show how it confirms everything that has been 
said from the beginning of these lectures in regard to 
the original fused condition of the earth, its subsequent 
crusting over with land, and the formation of a vapory 
mass with which all planets seem for a long time to be 
encompassed. The existence, therefore, of such a vapor 
about this earth, and its long continuance, perhaps 
until after the creation of man, I regard as little short 
of certainty. It is a key which unlocks the doors of 
mystery as to the condition of this globe and its sur- 
roundings in those periods of remote antiquity in refer- 
ence to which geology is compelled to confess its igno- 

God, however, in the account of the first two days, 
has given us a statement of the leading facts ; and with 
the aid of this almost certainly demonstrable fact of the 
original fused condition of the globe and the dense 
vapor which follows as an inevitable consequence, we 
find the sacred page illumined, and the causes and nat- 
ural sequence of the mysterious facts which it relates 
become apparent. 

We say, then, that in neither the account given us in 
Holy Scripture of the first day's work, nor in that of the 


second, is there the slightest conflict with the teachings 
of Geology, or of Natural Science. On the contrary, 
wherever Geology has a voice to utter, it is but a re- 
echoing of what Moses wrote more than three thousand 
years ago. And Natural Science only raises her voice to 
reaffirm the truths of the inspired record. 

PART 11. 

THIRD DAY. — GEN. I. 9-13. 

TTTE are now prepared to consider the work of the 
^ ' third day, or period, of the creation. This, you 
will remember, is the beginning of the second great geo- 
logical era. It is called the Palaeozoic Era, or the era of 
ancient life. It does indeed usher in a new era in the 
world's history. Its duration is immense ; it is more 
than twice as long as the two following eras, the Meso- 
zoic and the Cenozoic, put together. It does, in point 
of fact, embrace two eras, or periods, — the third and the 
fourth days of Scripture. But G-eology knows nothing 
of the fourth day, from the fact that the fourth day was 
not a period of transformation of the earth, but rather 
like the second day, a period of further action upon the 

The Palseozoic Era, besides numerous minor epochs, 
is divided into three great ages, called, first, the 
Silurian ; secondly, the Devonian ; and thirdly, the Car- 
boniferous Age. The first two of these, the Silurian and 
Devonian, correspond to the third day of Scripture. 
The third, the Carboniferous Era, is the fourth day of 

Remember now the condition of the earth at the close 
of the second day of Scripture. The earth, over its whole 
surface, is one wide waste of waters. But these waters 


are not tenaiitless, as they were in the beginning; they 
are full of life, both of vegetable and of animal life, in 
its very simplest forms. Above these waters rests an at- 
mosphere highly charged with carbonic acid gas. This 
atmosphere being heavier than vapor, has, during a 
course of ages, gradually settled from the vapor with 
which for a long time it had been commingled. Over 
and upon this atmosphere, to a vast height, rests a great 
cloud of vapor, not quite shutting out the light of the 
sun, but rendering all things quite obscure, even in the 
daytime. Still the solid globe is everywhere beneath 
the waters. But the time has come when God is about 
to form living things, for whose benefit the light of the 
first day and the air of the second day have been pro- 
duced. In order to this, the rocks buried beneath the 
waters must raise their heads per7nanentli/ above the 
waves, must receive living organisms upon their surface, 
and must nourish and sustain those organisms. Let us 
have distinctly before us the Scriptural record of the 
eveyits of the third day of Scripture. They are found in 
Genesis i. 9-13. '' And God said, Let the waters under 
the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let 
the dry land appear : and it was so. And God called 
the dry land Earth ; and the gathering together of the 
waters called he Seas : and God saw that it was good." 
We will pause here for the present. There are two 
great works that were wrought upon the third day. The 
formation of land was one of them. The creation of 
vegetation of various kinds was the other. 

From the words just recited we learn, that after a 
long reign of waters upon the globe, God spake first to 
the waters., that they should retire to one place ; and 


then commanded the dry land to make its appearance. 
But we have another, more elaborate, and very beauti- 
ful description of this same event in Psalm civ. The 
Psalmist setting forth the praises of God, speaks of 
him as having " laid the foundations of the earth, that 
it should not be removed forever. Thou coveredst it 
with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood 
above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled ; at the 
voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up 
by the mountains ; they go down by the valleys unto 
the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou 
hast set a bound that they may not pass over ; that 
they turn not again to cover the earth." I have 
often had occasion to observe that in our translation 
of the Scriptures the translators have sometimes en- 
deavored to explain the meaning of the Hebrew, 
instead of giving a literal translation. This is the 
case in this beautiful description of the first work of 
the third day, rendering the eighth verse thus, " They 
go up by the mountains; they go down by the val- 
leys." It would seem that they interpreted the Scrip- 
ture as referring to the flood, and could see no sense 
in the literal translation of the Hebrew, which, how- 
ever, they inserted in the margin in these words, 
" The mountains ascend, the valleys cZescend." But 
it is evident that the Psalmist has no reference what- 
ever to the flood, but to the creation. This appears 
from the first words, " who laid the foundations of 
the earth, that it should not be removed forever." 
And from the next also, " Thou coveredst it with the 
deep as with a garment." Here he repeats what 
Moses tells us, that at the creation the waters envel- 


opecl tliQ whole world. "The waters," says the Psalm- 
ist, "stood above the mountains." The crust of the 
earth must at the close of the second day have been 
some eight or ten miles thick; and consequently, as 
frequent as were the convulsions of this period, there 
must have been, as there are now^ mountains beneath 
the waters. Referring to the waters, he says, "At 
thy rebuke they fled ; at the voice of thy thunder 
they hasted away." There must indeed have been 
a thunder such as there never was before or since. 
For he goes on to say, according to the literal transla- 
tion : " The mountains ascend, the valleys descend unto 
the place which thou hast founded for them" ; that is, 
for the waters. There have been great convulsions 
since upon this globe ; but never, perhaps, was there 
siich thundering as on this occasion, when the ribs of 
the whole earth were broken, when the continents, like 
great mountains, reared their crests above the waves, 
and other portions of the rocks of the globe sank still 
deeper than before, miles and miles down into valleys 
deep enough to hold the waters. But the Psalmist 
proceeds to tell us that this uplift of the land was to be 
permanetit^ and that the waters never again should over- 
whelm them. His words are : " Thou hast set a bound 
that they [that is, waters] may not pass over; that 
they turn not again to cover the earths We have, then, 
the clear testimony of Scripture that, after a long reign 
of waters upon the earth, there came at length a time 
when the rocks were lifted out of the waters, and lands 
were formed ; and that this was to be a permanent state 
of things, lasting through all time. 

Has G-eology anything to say on this subject? Does 


it speak of any such event as the formation of land at 
this time ? It does^ most distinctly and positively. It 
tells us that in North America the continent began in 
Canada and Labrador and in the region to the west and 
northwest of Hndson's Bay. That in Europe it began 
in Norway and Sweden, Scotland, and Bohemia. In 
other continents it supposes there were contemporary 
lands lifted from the waters; but Geology has not suffi- 
ciently advanced to locate them. It tells us, moreover^ 
that an exterisive revolution of wplifting lands from the 
ivaters was a closing event of the Archi3ean Age. True, 
this great upheaval is spoken of as a closing event of the 
Archoean Age, whereas Scripture speaks of it as the fi7'st 
event of the next age. But it is a mere question of 
propriety, as to whether we shall call the upheaval of 
the continents the closing event of one age, or the be- 
ginning of the next. But it is manifestly preferable to 
speak of it as the Scriptures do, as the first event of a 
new age. For when water had reigned upon the earth 
through unnumbered ages, with what propriety shall 
we identify the appearance of land with the watery 
era? No, the appearance of land was the beginning 
of a new era ; it was introductory to the appearance of 
a new species of life upon the globe ; and therefore it 
is manifestly the beginning of the third day, or period, 
and not the close of the second. But the important 
consideration is, that Geology and Scripture. agree as to 
the fact that a great upheaval of lands from the waters 
did then take place. The upheaval was enormous. In 
Canada the rocks have a thickness of some forty thou- 
sand feet; that is, between seven and eight miles. In 
Bohemia they are still thicker. They are everywhere 


contorted in a remarkable degree, and bear upon them 
the impress of fire and of water. What a tremendous 
upheaval was that which brought the rocks, from so 
many miles beneath, up on to the surface, and even 
above the waters which previously had covered them ! 
It is true that the area actually above the water was 
comparatively small at first. But Geology tells us that 
whole eontinents^ as they 7iow are^ were uplifted at the 
time of which we speak, and that the deep channels of 
the ocean were then formed. The great hody of the 
continents was upheaved at that time; but they lay 
just beneath the waves. Dana says : " The great, but 
yet unmade, continents, although so small in the 
amount of dry land, were not covered by the deep 
ocean, but only by comparatively shallow oceanic 
waters. They lay just beneath the waves, already out- 
lined. Portions may have been at times a few thou- 
sands of feet under water; but in general the depth 
was small compared with that of the ocean." 

Here you see how strikingly this accords with the 
marginal translation of verse eight of Psalm civ., which 
tells us that at this time the valleys of the ocean had 
descended^ to hold the waters ; that the mountains had 
ascended, whole continents, — and the effect of all this 
was to bring about the result declared in Genesis i., 
namely, that the dry land was made to appear ; that 
is, some portions of the mountain crests rose above 
the waves. But the Scripture tells us that the land 
having now appeared, it was never again to be sub- 
merged. It is a great mistake to suppose that whole 
continents ever became ocean beds after this emerging in 
the beginning of the third great geological day, or period, 


or that there ever had been any previous continents. 
Speaking of the American continent, Le Conte says, 
" The continent was already sketched out at the begin- 
ning, and steadily developed throughout its continu- 
ance." But Dana, speaking of the whole worlds says 
that there is " little doubt that the existing places of 
the deep ocean and of the continents were determined 
even in the first formation of the earth's crust, — in the 
early Archaean Era, — and that in all the movements that 
have since occurred, the oceans and continents have never 
changed places." How signally do these words accord 
with the teaching of Scripture, that when God in the 
beginning assigned to the sea and the dry land their 
respective places, he set to the waters " a bound that 
they may not pass over ; nor turn again to cover the 
earth" ! And how signally does the entire geological 
account of a great continental upheaval at this time 
coincide with the teachings of Holy Scripture, that at 
that time the waters were commanded to be gathered 
together unto one place, and that dry land then first 
made its appearance ! But after the land had 

been lifted up from beneath the waters of the ocean, 
on the third day, there was another event which occu- 
pied the balance of this third day of Scripture ; and 
that was the clothing of the earth with vegetation. 
We have the account of it in these words, " And God 
said. Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding 
seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, 
whose seed is in itself, upon the earth : and it was so. 
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yield- 
ing seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, 
whose seed was in itself, after his kind : and God saw 


that it was good. And the evening and the morning 
Avere the third day." Before speaking particularly of 
these three classes of vegetation here enumerated, let 
me call your attention to this fact, that after the up- 
lifting of the lands from the waters, the formation of 
these three classes of vegetation was the tvork of the 
balance of this entire period. We are not to expect 
therefore to find them all in the beginning of the 
period; but we are to expect to find them all before 
its close. I would also have you not forget the fact 
that in the Mosaic account of the events of the crea- 
tion they appear to be enumerated with a scrupulous 
adherence to the exact order in which those events 
occurred. It is true that the Scriptures nowhere 
assert this, or necessarily imply it. But we find from 
an examination of the subject that such is in fact the 

Recurring, then, to the words of Scripture, we find 
here, first, three classes of vegetation enumerated as 
the second work of the third day. The earth is com- 
manded to bring forth, first, grass ; second, the herb 
yielding seed ; thirdly, the fruit-tree yielding fruit after 
his kind, whose seed is in itself. As to the first pro- 
duction, grass, there is added a marginal note intimat- 
ing that the more exact rendering of the Hebrew is 
tender grass. Gesenius, however, tells us that the pri- 
mary signification of the word deshe, here translated 
grass, is " the first shoots from the earth." The verb 
daushau means " to shoot forth." Consequently, the 
noun deshe, derived from it, must mean literally, some- 
thing shot forth, "a shooting" ; or, as Gesenius says, "a 
first shoot." Accordingly, he also renders it, "tender 


herbage." It is not necessary, therefore, to look for 
"^r6i!ss"as the first of vegetable creations, much less 
for such advanced grasses as now grow upon the earth, 
— clover, orchard grass, timothy, and the like. Tender 
herbage of any kind, and however simple, will suffi- 
ciently correspond to the word deshe. Secondly, the 
Scriptures speak of both the herbs of this period, and 
also of the trees as bearing seed. But it makes a dis- 
tinction as to the kinds of seed produced by the herb 
and the tree. It tells us of the herb, simply that it 
yielded seed. But of the tree it tells us that it yielded 
fruit whose seed is in itself; that is, in the fruit. It 
would appear, therefore, that there was this difference 
between the seed of the herb and of the tree. That in 
the one there was to be seed without fruit, and con- 
sequently which was yiot in a fruit; whereas, in the 
other there was to be fruit with seed in it. But it 
will be asked. Is there now any such distinction in 
vegetable productions, as plants which bear seed with- 
out fruit, and others which bear fruit with seed in the 
fruit? We answer, this distinction does now exist. It 
marks the two great divisions of plants known as cryp- 
togams and phenogams. Cryptogams are, as the name 
implies, plants which have the organs of fruitfulness con- 
cealed. Of this sort are ferns, ground pines, horse-tails, 
and some others. These yield the naked seed only, 
seed which are commonly called, "spores"; and although 
[ entirely different from all our ordinary seed, in being 
altogether without that fleshy matter which we find 
in almost all kinds of garden seed, and seeds of fruit- 
trees, still they are really seed, inasmuch as from them 
I the plant is propagated. But almost all our ordinary 


plants are phenogams; that is, plants whose organs of 
fruitfulness are apparent. But are there among pheno- 
gams trees yielding fruit whose seed is in the fruits 
There are many such. This is the case with all that 
bear nuts of whatever kind, — the walnut, hickory, chest- 
nut, almond, hazel-nut, and the like. For, in the first 
place, walnuts, hickory-nuts, chestnuts, etc., are as truly 
fruit as are apples, peaches, and pears, and are as truly 
nourishing as food. And, in the second place, they are 
fruits whose seed is in them. For the whole walnut, the 
whole chestnut is not seed. No ; it is the little germ 
which they contain, which, properly speaking, consti- 
tutes the seed. And as this germ is imbedded in the 
fleshy matter of the nut, therefore it is that all trees 
which bear nuts are trees yielding fruit whose seed is 
in the fruit. Peach, plum, and cherry trees, and also 
apple, pear, quince, and similar trees, have a double fruit- 
age ; the outer fleshy matter of the peach and apple, as 
well as the fleshy matter inside the nut of the peach, 
and what we commonly call the " seed " of the apple. 
Fruit-trees of this advanced type, it is not necessary to 
look for among the trees of the third day. But what 
we are to look for, is, beside tender herbage, herbs 
proper, bushes or vines having spores for seeds ; and 
full-grown trees, somewhat of the type of the walnut 
and hickory with fruit whose seed is in the fruit. 

Thirdly, we note a distinct order in these three classes 
of vegetable productions, namely : first, grass ; second, 
herbs ; third, trees. We have, then, three facts indi- 
cated by the Scriptures as to the second work of the 
third day. First, during this period, the earth was to 
be clothed with vegetation of three kinds, — grass, or 


tender herbage, herbs proper, and fruit-trees. Secondly, 
the lierbs were to be of the class of cryptogams, yield- 
mg no fruit, but seed only ; that is, spores : whereas 
the trees were to yield fruit whose seed should be m 
the fruit. Thirdly, the appearance of these three classes 
of vegetation was to be in the following order : first, 
grass, or tender herbage ; second, herbs ; third, trees. 

Let us now turn to the geological record and see 
whether or not it confirms the Scriptural statements. 
Did grass, or tender herbage, herbs, and trees appear 
for the first time during this third day of Scripture? 
They did. Geologists affirm distinctly that before this 
time the only plants that grew on this earth were 
marine plants. But at the end of the Devonian period, 
that is, the close of the third day, there were not only 
a " green sward " upon the ground, and an abundance 
of herbs, but that the lands were covered with forest 
trees. Secondly, Were the vegetable productions of 
the earth at that day divided into those two classes, of 
herbs bearing seed only, that is, cryptogams ; and fruit- 
trees with fruit whose seed was in the fruit? They 
were. For a long time, even to the end of the Silurian 
Age, and perhaps afterwards, cryptogams were the only 
kinds of plants in existence. There were no trees in 
the Silurian Age, but there were small herbaceous plants 
of various kinds, and without exception they were cryp- 
togams; that is, herbs yielding seed. In the Devonian 
Age, however, fruit-trees appeared of two classes : they 
were lepidodendrids, that is, trees marked with scales 
on their bark ; and conifers, that is, trees allied to our 
modern spruces and pines. Botli of these classes of 
trees bore fruit. And the fruit was such as had its 


seed in itself. In both instances it was a nut; and in 
the case of the conifers, a nut of considerable size. 
Thirdly, according to the Scriptural statement, we 
would infer that the following order was to be ob- 
served: first, tender herbage was to make its appear- 
ance ; secondly, herbs ; thirdly, fruit-trees. Does Geol- 
ogy teach that they were brought forth by the earth 
in this order? In so far as the grass is concerned, 
in this instance only in the whole account of the crea- 
tion the evidence of Geolog}^ as to what appears to be 
the Scriptural order is ]iot positive^ but of a probable 
nature only. Dana declares that "the lands, accord- 
ing to present evidence, had no green sward over the 
rocks, except during the closing part of the Silurian 
Age "; whereas it appears that "a very few land plants 
(ferns and club-mosses) have been detected as early as 
the middle Silurian." 

So far as positive evidence goes, the herb appears be- 
fore the green herbage, at the middle of the Silurian ; 
whereas the herbage is not positively known before the 
close of the age. Still, Geology gives several probable 
arguments for the prior creation of the herbage. The 
first is an analogical argument, namely, that in crea- 
tion generally, and in this age in particular, there is in 
the main a gradual advance from the lower to the 
higher orders of existences. In the Archaean Era we 
have only the lowest forms of life. In the Paleozoic 
we have higher forms, and in the Devonian Age fish ap- 
pear. In the Mesozoic we find reptiles ; in the Ceno- 
zoic, mammals ; and finally, man. So, in this third day, 
we have unquestionably herbs before trees. It is, there- 
fore, most in accordance with what Geology informs us 


as to God's plan in creation, to believe that the tender 
herbage, the lowest form of vegetable life, was created 
before the higher form of herbs, as they both preceded 
trees. But there have also been found carbonaceous 
shales of the early Silurian, which proves positively 
that some kind of vegetable life existed on the land at 
that period. The fact that the impression of the plant 
is so feeble that its precise nature cannot be ascertained, 
is more favorable to the idea that it was tender herbage 
than any other kind, since it, of all kinds, owing to its 
fragile nature, is least likely to make a distinct impres- 
sion. But, after all, it must not be forgotten that, ac- 
cording to the universal testimony of geologists, Geology 
knows almost nothing about the vegetation of that early 
age, and but Very little concerning the vegetation of 
any age. Plants have no bony structure like animals, 
and therefore are not preserved as animals are. Of the 
myriads of kinds of plants which it is universally agreed 
must have existed in early times, only some two thou- 
sand five hundred to three thousand have been found 
in the fossil state. Dana thinks that these are not more 
than as one in a thousand of the plants that have ex- 
isted. The wonder is, therefore, that Geology should 
have told us of the existence of anything so frail as 
tender herbage at so early a period as the close of the 
Silurian Age. Its lack of any positive testimony as to 
its appearance before that time is no evidence whatever 
of its non-existence before that time. It would 7iot have 
been strange if Geology had preserved no record of the 
existence of the herb before the fruit-tree. Still it has^ 
in the providence of God, preserved that record most 
distinctly. For, whereas the herb has been discovered 


about the middle Silurian, no tree of any kind was 
found before the Devonian Age. But, as we have 
already stated, there were lepidodendrids and conifers, 
fruit-trees whose seed are in themselves, found in con- 
siderable numbers during the Devonian. 

And now I ask in conclusion that you will look back 
upon the work of the' first three days, and consider 
whether there is the slightest contradiction between the 
Scriptural and geological records. The Scriptural rec- 
ord goes beyond the geological ; but it harmonizes per- 
fectly with Astronomy and every other branch of natural 
science bearing on the subject. 

But when it comes within the scope of Geology, it 
harmonizes perfectly and in a variety of particulars 
with the geological record, wherever that record is clear 
and full. I have in a previous lecture noted this har- 
mony as to the work of the first day. But I ask, — 

I. Is it not a wonderful thing that Moses should in- 
form us that the atmosphere, although created in the he- 
ginni^ig, yet was not formed until the second day or 
period? And have we not shown you that it was impos- 
sible for the atmosphere to have existed, separate from 
the vapory mass, until long ages after the time when 
darkness first began to reign upon the deep ? 

II. And is it not certain that it m^ist have been 
formed exactly at this time? For since it could not 
have been formed on the first day, owing to the agitated 
state of the vapory atmosphere ; and since it must have 
been formed before the third day, since land vegetation 
then existed which could not have lived without air, 
therefore it follows conclnsively that it must have been 
formed at the time the Scripture says it was, namely. 


between the first and third days; that is, on the second 

III. Is it not wonderful that Moses should have as- 
signed a whole day^ or geological period^ to the forma- 
tion of the atmosphere, so simple a thing as it is? And 
has it not been shown you that it must 7iecessarily have 
consumed an immense period before the commotion of 
the engirding vapor could have sufficiently subsided to 
allow of the fixed settling of the atmospheric air and 
carbonic acid gas/rom the vapor? 

IV. Is it not remarkable that Moses should have 
spoken of the atmosphere as being in the midst of the 
waters, and as separating the waters which were under 
the firmament from the waters which were above the 
firmament, in apparefit contradiction to the common 
reason of every man, which tells him that the atmos- 
phere is not in the midst of the waters, that there are 
no waters above the firmament to separate from those 
below ; and yet that it should turn out that at the time 
of which Moses wrote there must have been fully as 
much water above the firmament as there was below it, 
and that the firmament did lie directly between these 
masses of water separating them from each other ? 

V. Is it not wonderful that Geology and Moses 
should concur in affirming that the first land was formed 
under the water, and that it was lifted up out of the 
water ? 

VI. Is it not wonderful that they should concur in 
affirming that there was one grand era of continent- 
making, and hut one ; that channels and a bed were 
then assigned to the ocean, and that bounds were then 


set to the whelming tiood which from that day to this 
it has never passed — I mean for any length of time ? 

VII. Is it not wonderful that Scripture and Geology 
should concur as to the different kinds of plants of that 
period? Is it not wonderful that Moses should have 
distinguished minutely between the kinds of seed which 
those plants should bear, and should inform us that in 
the latter part of the third day there should be trees 
with fruit, whose seed was in the fruit; whereas previ- 
ously there were apparently to be onl}^ herbs, small her- 
baceous plants, with seed onli/; that is, with spores? 
And do we not see in the geological record (another 
book of the same God who inspired Moses) a spreading 
before our minds of the sa?ne facts? Is there, then, con- 
tradiction in all this ? Is there not harmony/, wonderful 
harmony? A harmony so wonderful as to compel us 
to acknowledge that so far, at least, the first chapter of 
the Book of Genesis does not appear to contain the 
speculations of an impostor, but to be the inspired 
record of the all-wise God ? 

Lectuee IY. 


FOURTH DAY. —GEN. I. 14-19. 

WE have now reached the fourth day, or period. 
This, I will remind you, is the latter part of 
the Palceozoic Era, the second era of geologists. That 
part of the Palaeozoic Era which corresponds to the 
fourth day of the Scriptures is the last of its three ages, 
and is known as the Carboniferous Age. This is the time 
when the great coal beds of the earth were formed. 
While, therefore, geologists turn our eyes down to the 
bowels of the earth to contemplate the wonders wrought 
therein, the Scriptures lift wp our eyes to the heavens 
to behold the wonders there performed. And although 
not a word is said in Scripture in regard to the formation 
of coal, yet I think we shall see before the close of our 
remarks on the work of the fourth day, that there is 
good reason to believe that there is an intimate connec- 
tion between the coal formation and the work performed 
on the heavenly bodies; and that the coal formation 
was one principal cause of the work wrought on the 
heavenly bodies. 

What was the work of the fourth day ? I will repeat 
it from the Scriptures, because in our discussion of the 
text we cannot have that text too vividly impressed 


upon our minds. It reads thus : '' And God said, Let 
there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide 
the day from the night ; and let them be for signs, and 
for seasons, and for days, and years : and let them be 
for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light 
upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two 
great lights ; the greater light to rule the day, and the 
lesser light to rule the night : he made the stars also. 
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to 
give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day 
and over the night, and to divide the light from the 
darkness : and God saw that it was good. And the 
evening and the morning were the fourth day." 

You perceive that we are here told that God had a 
threefold object in view, namely : first, to divide be- 
tween the day and the night ; secondly, to have fixed 
seasons, days, and years ; and thirdly, to have this world 
duly illuminated both by day and by night. Having 
these objects in view, he sent forth his fiat for lumina- 
ries to fulfil his will. Accordingly he made three 
lights, or orders of lights, — the sun, the moon, and the 
stars, — and set them in the firmament of the heaven to 
accomplish the purposes for which they were made. 

But here has ever been a great wonder among 
theologians, commentators upon Holy Scripture, and 
others. What, say they, does this mean? We are told 
that light was formed on the first day, and yet here we 
are informed that the luminaries (which give light) were 
not formed until the fourth day! Again they say: Can 
it be possible that the sun and all the vast assemblage 
of immense worlds on liigh were not created until after 
this tiny earth was made, and then created mainl}^ to 


serve itf Here is, indeed (as tbey view it), a great 
niysteiy. But is there no way of solving it? I answer, 
There is. It is this : that the work of this fourth day 
has nothing whatever to do with the creation (properly 
so called) of the sun or moon, or any other of the heav- 
enly bodies. For do not the very first words of this 
chapter declare very distinctly and positively that the 
creation of both the heavens and the earth took place 
long before this ? that " in the beginning God created 
the heavens and the earth " ? that is, that the creation of 
the heavens as well as of the earth, was the very first 
work which God performed ? And hence it necessarily 
follows that either this took place before the first day, or 
else was the very first work of the first day ? Since, then, 
Moses tells us that God created them on or before the 
first day, how is it possible that he can be speaking 
of their creation on the fou^^th day ? But it may be 
said, Does not he say distinctly in referring to the work 
of the fourth day, that God nfiade two great lights ? I 
answer. It is very true that it is said that he made 
them ; but it is not said that he created them. The 
word here translated " made " is not baurau^ which 
means " created," but ^wawsai^, which, although of very 
frequent occurrence, never is translated " created " from 
the beginning of the Scripture to the end of it. It is 
repeatedly translated " made " as in the text. But our 
English word " made " hardly ever means " to create." A 
very common meaning of it is " to prepare for use." As, 
for example, we speak of making Q\ot\iQ^ ; and mean that 
we take cloth, already made, and prepare it for nse as a 
garment. We speak of making breads meaning that we 
prepare flour for use as food. But the word gnausau 


here translated " made '' is translated '' dressed " no less 
than fourteen times in the Scripture. As, for example, 
when it is said of Abraham, that he "ran unto the 
herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it 
unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. And he 
took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed^ 
and set it before them." But what is meant by dress- 
ing the calf ? It is preparing the calf for use as food ; 
and so it is in the other cases. But one of the most 
common of all translations of the word gnausau is 
" prepared." It is so translated not less than thirty-two 
times. Thus it is said of Rebecca when she sent Jacob 
to Isaac with kid meat for venison, that " she gave the 
savory meat and the bread which she had prepared^ into 
the hand of her son Jacob." And so it is in thirty-one 
other cases in the Old Testament. There is, then, abun- 
dant reason for understanding the words " God made 
two great lights," not in the sense of creating them on 
the fourth day, but as j9r6'|?arw?^ them ; as getting them 
ready to he lights on that day. 

But it may be asked. If these lights, the sun, the 
moon, and the stars, had been already in existence for 
an immense period of time, how was it that they were 
made ready (or p)repared') to fulfil the three purposes 
which, according to Scripture, they first were enabled 
to fulfil on the fourth day ? Before I answer this ques- 
tion let me recall to your minds distinctly what these 
three purposes were. The first was, to divide the day 
from the night. The second was, to serve as signs of 
the seasons, days, and years. The third was, to give 
light upon the earth, so that the sun should be the ruler 
of the day, and the moon the ruler of the night. And 


now for the answer. And first I say, it is very easy to 
see how it was that the sun, moon, and stars, although 
in existence for so long a time, yet did not fulfil these 
three purposes before that time. It was because they 
were prevented from doing so by the vast envelope of 
uncondensed vapor which enshrouded this entire globe, 
and to which I have so repeatedly referred hitherto. 
At the close of this fourth day, however, there was no 
loyiger so much vapor to obscure the heavenly bodies. 
The causes which had hitherto operated to condense the 
vapor still operated, and in an intefisified degree, as the 
earth was all the while gradually growing cooler. And 
besides, I am well assured that another agent, of which 
I shall soon speak, also began to operate with vast 
power to diminish the mass of overhanging vapor, and 
to make the heavenly bodies occasionally., and for the 
first time, visible to the inhabitants of the world at that 
period. And thus you see that the preparation of the 
heavenly bodies consisted in the removal of the vapors 
to that degree that they no longer completely shut out 
the heavenly bodies from view, as they had always done 
hitherto. When this result was achieved^ then (^and not 
before^ the sun, moon, and stars did subserve the three 
purposes for which God had prepared them, by taking 
off the mask of vapor from their faces. Then, for the 
first time, they began with some degree of regularity to 
fulfil the first purpose mentioned, which was to divide 
the day from the night. In the first day we are told, 
not that the heavenly bodies, but that G-od^ divided the 
day from the night. Then there was no regularity in 
the recurrence of day and night. So thick was the 
vapor then that in all probability there would only be 


an occasional day. I myself have a recollection of two 
days which, during a portion of them, were so dark 
that it almost appeared like night. One occurred last 
winter, when it became necessary to breakfast by can- 
dle-light, in a well lighted room, sometime after sunrise. 
And if this can happen in the prese7it state of the atmos- 
phere, we may well believe that in early periods daylight 
was only occasional, and lasted only for a few hours, or 
even minutes, at a time. It would gradually, however, 
become more frequent and of longer duration. But we 
can well understand how irregular these periods of day- 
light must have been for many long ages, depending 
upon providential rifts in the vapors above for their 
occurrence ; and no doubt at times, when the moon was 
full and the clouds thinner than usual, the light would 
be that of the moon, yet so undistinguishable from that 
of the sun that it could not be known whether it was 
night or day. But at the close of the fourth day the sun 
had, to an extent unknown before, become ruler of the 
day, and the moon ruler of the night. And thus to- 
gether they served v/ith some degree of defiiiiteness to 
divide the day from the night. 

But there was a second purpose which they then, for 
the first time, began to fulfil. They on the fourth day 
(and not before') served "for signs, and for seasons, and 
for days, and years." The meaning of these words is 
somewhat obscure. It is difficult to attach any distinct 
meaning to them. The Hebrew word vav, translated 
"and" here, does not always mean "and"; although that 
is its usual meaning. Gesenius understands the expres- 
sion "signs and seasons" in this particular instance, to 
which he refers in his dictionary, to mean "signs of 


seasons." And this clears up the meaning very consid- 
erably. But what does " seasons " mean ? The word 
mognad^ here translated " seasons," means (radically) 
something definite. As applied to places^ as it some- 
times is, it means a fixed place for assembly, as the 
tabernacle of the congregation, or the synagogue. As 
applied to time^ it means a definite, fixed time. So 
Gresenius says, and so I could easily shozv by numer- 
ous examples. And as the word vav frequently means 
"even," I can only understand the passage we are 
considering as signifying that the second purpose for 
which God prepared the lights in heaven was that they 
might serve as signs of fixed, definite periods, namely, 
of days and of years. That is to say, before this time 
there was nothing definite about the length of days and 
of years. Now we know that the day and night to- 
gether are twenty-four hours long. We can now tell 
to the very second the length of each day and of each 
night in the whole year. We can tell, moreover, pre- 
cisely how long a i/ear is, and exactly when each year 
begins and ends. And it is difficult for us to realize 
that it ever could have been otherwise. But it was/ar 
otherwise in early times. The great prevalence of 
uiists and vapors prevented the creatures then in exis- 
tence from understanding as definitely about those mat- 
ters as animals of like grade do at present. But as the 
time was approaching when God was about to create 
vast numbers of animals whose convenience and com- 
fort would be very greatly enhanced by the regular 
recurrence of day and night, and by the observance of 
certain seasons of the year (as for example birds of pas- 
sage now do) ; therefore it was that God so prepared 


the heavenly bodies, that they should serve to the 
animals as signs of definite days and years. 

But the third purpose for which God prepared the 
heavenly bodies was to give light upon the earth in a 
degree they had never given it hitherto. As I have 
just remarked, God was about to fill the world with 
animals that would 7ieed light ; the w^aters, the air, the 
land, was to be filled with them. They would not be 
the eyeless animals which to so great a degree had 
hitherto prevailed. But animals ivith eyes, that would 
need the light of the sun by day for their convenience, 
and the light of the moon by night ; and therefore God 
so prepared the heavenly bodies for them as to give them 
a measure of light which the inhabitants of the earth 
had not hitherto received from them. 

And thus you see how it was, that although the 
heavenly bodies were created in the beginning, and had 
long given some light to the earth, yet it was not until 
the fourth day that the clearing off of the mists had 
reached such an extent as to enable them regularly to 
divide the day from the night, to give definiteness to 
the length of days and of years, and to give that meas- 
ure of light to the creatures about to be created, which 
the creatures of the past had not needed. You see, 
moreover, that Moses does not speak of the existence of 
light upon the earth before there was a luminary. 
Neither does he teach us that the heavenly bodies were 
created after this little world, and chiefly for the purpose 
of giving light to it. 

But T cannot leave this part of the subject before 
adverting briefly to the observance of that order in the 
occurrence of the events of this dav which I have noted 


in the occurrences of other days. First, then, Moses 
does not say that God prepared the stars, the moon, 
and the sun to be lights. But he mentions the greater 
light first, then the lesser light, and lastly the stars. 
This, you will perceive, was the natural order. Because 
the light of the sun, being so immensely more powerful 
than that of the other bodies, would first become con- 
spicuous ; next, the moon would become visible ; last 
of all, the dimmer light of the stars would habitually be 
seen. Again, Moses represents days as being definitely 
defined before years. This also is the natural order. 
For men (after they were created) soon found out the 
length of the days ; but, unless the builders of the great 
pyramid were an exception, they were nearly four thou- 
sand years in finding out the exact length of a year. 
Indeed, it could not be known, even to me?2, until the 
starry heavens were in full view, and the constellations 
of the ecliptic could be observed. 

Another matter to be noted here is the meaning of 
the word "set" in verse 17, where it is said, "And God 
set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light 
upon the earth." Our English word " set " has a variety 
of meanings, and is therefore ambiguous. If I say, " I 
set the chair in its place," I have a reference to locality — 
to the location of the chair. But if I say, " Such a man 
is ' set ' in his ways," the meaning is entirely different. 
It is that the man is fixed and settled in his habits. 
But the Hebrew word yautan^ of which " set " is the 
translation in verse 17, is not ambiguous. It has no ref- 
erence to location whatever. It means, in general, "to 
be perennial, to flow constantly as water, to be con- 
stant, permanent." Gesenius says, " The primary idea 


seems to be that of extending^'; consequently, in verse 
17, the meaning evidently is, that God made it the per- 
manent office of the sun, moon, and stars in the heavens 
to give light upon the earth. So that the meaning of the 
whole passage is, not that God created the heavenly 
bodies to be lights, and located them in the heavens, but 
that he prepared^ for certain offices, heavenly bodies 
which had already been created, and made it thence- 
forth their permanent duty to continue to fulfil those 
offices. And this they have done from that day to this, 
to the unspeakable comfort, not only of mankind, 
but of innumerable other animals living upon this 

I have said that Geology knows nothing, and cannot 
possibly know anything, of the work wrought by God 
upon the earth's vapory envelope during the fourth day, 
inasmuch as it takes cognizance only of changes in the 
den^e body of the globe, and in the living creatures 
which existed upon it. I have stated also that this 
fourth day of Scripture is the latter part of the Palseo- 
zoic Era of geologists, and is known by them as the 
Qarhoniferous Age. Geologically, it is one of the most 
notable of all the periods ; for it is computed that nine- 
tenths of all the coal that now exists in the earth was 
formed during this period. But I wish to show you the 
connection between the forming of this coal and the 
diminishing of the vapory envelope of the earth. We 
say, tlierefore : That coal is of vegetable origin is now 
universally understood. Trees and vegetable growth 
of all kinds accumulated for a long time in the luxu- 
riant marshes, jungles, and forests of the Carboniferous 
Era, until vegetable matter of many feet in depth over- 


spread the whole surface of the ground, and that, too, 
over immeyise areas. By a gradual subsidence of the 
earth, this vegetable mass was sunk beneath the ocean's 
waves. There, rocks were formed upon it by settlings 
from the waters. In the lapse of ages those rocks were 
elevated again upon the surface, to become land, and 
receive fresh vegetable deposits. New jungles and for- 
ests were formed. By and by these again sank beneath 
the waters ; and thus, by successive risings and sinkings 
of the earth, numbers of beds of coal, witii intervening 
rocks, were formed. This is the explanation geologists 
give of the formation of coal, and it is the only intelli- 
gible explanation of it that I have ever seen. 

The seams of coal vary from one to ten feet in thick- 
ness, and in one instance (the mammoth vein in Penn- 
sylvania) to forty feet in thickness. All together, their 
thicknes's in some localities amounts to some one hundred 
and fifty feet. But we must not suppose that this was 
the entire thickness of the vegetable beds out of which 
the coal was formed. They were compacted in some 
instances by the weight of miles of rock. It is evident, 
therefore, that the growth of vegetation was exceedingly 
rank during this period. And it is agreed among geolo- 
gists that this is due mainly to three causes : namely, 
the warmth of the climate, the humidity of the atmos- 
phere, and the immense amount of carbonic acid gas 
that the atmosphere contained. As coal, and the trees 
out of which the coal was formed, consist chiefly of car- 
bon, and inasmuch as trees derive their carbon mainly 
from the atmosphere by inhaling carbonic acid gas, the 
immense coal beds of the world, one hundred and fifty 
solid feet in thickness, show what a vast amount of car- 


boiiic acid gas was extracted by vegetable growth from 
the atmosphere during the Carboniferous Era. 

But geologists are of the opinion, and expressly affirm, 
that the rank growth of this period is in great part due 
also to the huinldity of the atmosphere which, they say, 
characterized this age. And this I wish you particularly 
to note, because it is this fact especially — namely, that 
moisture contributes to vegetable growth — which con- 
nects the geological formations of this age with the 
removi7ig of moisture from the atmosphere, and so dimin- 
ishing the volume of the engirding vapor as to make the 
sun, moon, and stars visible. Dana (page 136), speaking 
of the causes that promoted the growth of vegetation in 
the Carboniferous. Era, says : " The atmosphere was more 
moist than now. It must," says he, " have been an era 
of prevailing clouds and mists." In like manner, Le 
Conte (381-2) mentions the moisture of the atmosphere 
of the period as a physical condition extremely favorable 
to vegetation. But ivhy do clouds and mists so favor 
vegetation? Must it not be because plants imbibe 
moisture from the atmosphere through their leaves, and 
perhaps also through their bark? Is it not a fact that 
all plants of the garden and of the field are greatly re- 
vived by the dews which fall upon their surface during 
the night? These dews scarce reach the roots of the 
plants. Is it not plain, then, that they drink it in over 
their whole surface ? 

Ladies are familiar with the fact, that when their 
bouquets of flowers begin to wilt, they are revived by 
spi'inkling water over them. This proves conclusively 
that the water enters through their surface. Humboldt 
maintains that trees extract moisture from the atmos- 


phere by means of tlieir leaves, even when there is 
neither rain nor dew. He says : " The agreeable and 
fresh verdure which is observed in many trees in dis- 
tricts witiiin the tropics, where for five or seven months 
of the year not a cloud is seen on the vault of heaven, 
and where no perceptible dew or rain falls, proves that 
the leaves are capable of extracting water from the 
atmosphere by a peculiar vital process of their own." 

The imbibing power of the leaves of trees, Humboldt 
regards as demonstrated. And certainly the refreshing 
of plants by the dews of night, and the reviving of flow- 
ers by sprinkling them, seems to me to be also a demon- 
stration of it. But this being so, we see very clearly 
how it was that a vast diminution in the mass of the 
vapor that surrounded the earth must have taken place 
in the Carboniferous Age, or fourth day of Scripture, 
through the agency of the vegetation of that age, and 
so contributed to the partial removal of that vaporous 
mash which hitherto had completely hidden from the 
view of earth's creatures the faces of the sun, of the 
moon, and of the stars. Because every tree, every bush, 
every blade ot grass, in that age of mists and of moisture, 
instead of drinking water mainly from the ground by 
means of its roots, would take in a great part of its 
moisture, perhaps the greater part, from the surrounding 
atmosphere, and converting it into water, would, by the 
descent of the sap, discharge it into the ground. And 
when we take into consideration these facts, first, that 
the vegetation of the day was of a hind tliat required 
more than the usual amount of moisture to sustain it; 
secondly, that of all periods since the earth was formed 
this was the period of the rankest and most abundant 


vegetation ; thirdly, that the whole landed surface of 
the earth was covered with forests, as there were then 
no men to clear the land ; fourthly, that it was a period 
of immense duration, probably of more than one million 
of years, — wq say when we consider these facts, we 
can clearly perceive what an immense draught was 
made upon the watery envelope of the globe by the 
vegetation of the Carboniferous Age. We can see how 
the work which geologists describe as being wrought at 
this time upon the earth, becomes a chief cause of that 
work which the Scriptures declare was at the same time 
wrought in the heavens. And thus, instead of a clash- 
ing of the Scriptural and geological records, we find a 
most wonderful and unexpected coincidence. 


FIFTH DAY. — GEN. I. 20-23. 

WE have now reached the fifth day of the Scrip- 
tures. Hitherto the Scriptural record has been 
more full than the geological. Both Scripture and 
Geology tell us of the plants of the third day of the 
Scriptures, the second geological era ; but the Scripture 
alone tells us of the work of making the atmosphere on 
the second day, and without which plants could not 

Both Scripture and Geology tell us of the wonderful 
animals created upon the fifth and sixth days of Scrip- 
ture ; that is, the third and fourth eras of Geology. 
But the Scripture goes heyond Geology, in that it tells 
us on the fourth day, of that preparation of the lights 
of heaven which by their beams caused all animated 
creatures to rejoice ; and which, by producing a regular 
division of day and night, and a regular succession of 
definite periods of time, were essential to the well-being 
of the new population, which was to swarm in the 
waters, in the air, and upon the laud. 

The fifth day of Scripture coincides perfectly with the 
third era of geologists. This third era is called by them 
the Mesozoic Era, or the era of middle life. The former 
era was closed by great convulsions of the earth. On 
our own Atlantic coast some seven or eight miles of rock 


were heaved up from the depths below, and the Appa- 
lachian chains of mountains were formed. Other monn- 
tain chains were lifted up in other parts of the world, 
and (as is usual at the close of each era) all pre-existing 
species of plants and animals (so far as is known) were 
destroyed. But the Creator entered upon the labor of 
another day. In addition to the creation of creatures 
akin to those of the previous period, he called for new 
and higher forms of life both in the animal and in the 
vegetable world. We had an account of the origin 
of life he-neath the tvaters on the first day. We had an 
account of the origin of vegetable life on the lajid on the 
third day. But on the fifth day a neiv species of life 
appears. We have living beings formed which inhale 
the atmosphere, and bask in the beams of the sun, as 
well as inhabit the waters, or sojourn upon the land. 
We have the Scriptural account in Genesis i. 20-23. 
Let us observe it very carefully : " And God said, Let 
the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature 
that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in 
the open firmament of heaven. And God created great 
whales, and every living. creature that moveth, which the 
waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and 
every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it 
was good. And God blessed them, saying. Be fruitful, and 
multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl 
multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morn- 
ing were the fifth day." You will observe that there 
are here two classes of creatures formed on this day : 
one class was to have its home mainly in the tvaters; 
the other \Yas fowls, which should fly in the air. Let us 
examine what is said of the water animals first, and 


afterward what is said of i\iQ foivls. First, observe that 
there ivere water animals, or, at least, there were to be 
animals which should be brought forth by the waters. 
" God said. Let the ivaters bring forth abundantly the 
moving creature." Observe, secondly, that these crea- 
tures which the waters were to bring forth were to be 
reptiles, I am aware that the text of Scripture does not 
say so, but the marginal translation does., and reads 
" creeping " instead of " moving." And here let me say 
that I would not on any account say aught to impair 
that profound reverence which we all ought to entertain 
for the Word of God. Neither am I willing unnecessarily 
to impair that confidence which we rightly have in our 
authorized English version of the Scriptures, which is 
perhaps the best version that we ever have had, or are 
soon likely to have. Still we must distinguish between 
the Scriptures themselves, which are of Divine origin, 
and therefore infallible, and the translation of them, 
which is human, and therefore liable to error. It is a 
fact well known to all who have ever attempted to 
translate from one language to another, that a knowl- 
edge of the subject of which the author treats is indis- 
pensable to the translator, and that a misconception as 
to what he intends to say will lead to errors in transla- 
tion. The translators of Genesis i. have labored under 
this great difficulty, that they did not understand the 
process of the creation of the world, and therefore have 
not always given the correct rendering of the Hebrew. 
This is particularly conspicuous in their translation of 
the work of the fifth day. What was more natural than 
that they should suppose that the account given by 
Moses of what the waters brought forth on that day 


should be an account of the creation of fish ! But, in 
fact, fish liad been created long before, in the Devonian 
age of the Palaeozoic Era. And Moses says not one 
word about fish. He speaks of reptiles and birds only. 
To make him speak of fish, the Hebrew is strained from 
its plain meaning. Thus, in translating the passage we 
are considering in verse 20, the translators were aware 
that they were not giving a literal translation of the 
Hebrew, and evidently supposing that this was an 
account of the creation of fish (which it was not), and 
not understanding how the motion of fish could be de- 
scribed as "creeping," they substituted "moving" in 
place of it. But any Hebrew dictionary will tell you 
that the word sherets^ here translated " moving," ordi- 
narily means a creeping or crawling thing, a reptile. 
The word sherets occurs repeatedly in Scripture, and is 
always translated " creeping," so far as I can discern, 
except on one other occasion, in Leviticus xi. 10, when it 
is again translated " moving." In the twentieth verse, 
God commands the waters to bring forth these reptiles. 
In the twenty-first verse, the reptiles are spoken of as 
already created. Our translation here reads, " God cre- 
ated great whales, and every living creature that mov- 
ethy Here the word translated " moveth " is not sherets.^ 
but raumas. But Gesenius gives no other meaning to 
raumas but that of crawling or creeping; so that, how- 
ever, on some rare occasions these words may mean 
moving, yet this is not their ordinary meaning. If you 
will refer to a Concordance for the places in which the 
words " creeping," " creep," and the like, occur in our 
English translation, and then refer to the original word 
in the Hebrew text, you will find that in every instance^ 


if a verb, it is either raumas or shaurats ; or, if a noun, 
it is either the noun remes or sherets. Unquestionably, 
therefore, the creatures that the waters were to bring 
forth were to be, not moving, but creeping, things or 

Our translation speaks of these reptiles as creatures 
that have life. " Let the waters bring forth the moving 
creature, that hath life.''' The words translated " creature 
that hath life " are in the original Hebrew, Nephesh hay- 
yau. Here the translators show how puzzled they are, 
by inserting another marginal translation, substituting 
"living soul" for "creature that hath life." Indeed, 
in this one verse they have four marginal translations, 
showing how embarrassed they are in discovering the 
true meaning of the original Hebrew text. And it is 
no wonder. It is nothing against the general correct- 
ness of the translation. But in the opinion of those 
two most eminent Hebraists, Gesenius, the author of 
the standard Hebrew Lexicon, and Young, the very 
learned author of the most valuable concordance in 
existence, as well as the author of a literal translation 
of the Old Testament ; — in the opinion of these most 
eminent scholars, I say, the word nephesh here indicates 
azV-breathing animals. The verb naiiphash means to 
breathe ; and so the root meaning of the noun nephesh is 
breath. Gesenius expressly declares that in -this par- 
ticular instance, as also in verse 30, the true mean- 
ing of Nephesh haiyau is the breath of life. So that 
the passage thus rendered would be, " Let the waters 
bring forth abundantly the reptile that hath the breath 
of life." According to Young it would be, "Let the 
waters bring forth abundantly the breathing creature 


that hath life." Although the word nephesh is of 
very frequent occurrence, and is variously translated, 
yet after the examination of a large number of instances 
where it is used (about four hundred and fifty), I have 
never found it applied to any but an <2i>-breathing ani- 
mal, and almost universally to human beings ; although 
it unquestionably refers to inferior animals in this chap- 
ter. The waters, therefore, clearly, were commanded to 
bring forth abundantly air-hreatking reptiles. And I 
will call your attention, /(^wr^/^?^, to this fact, that these 
creatures were to be very numerous. " Let the waters 
bring forth abundantly the crawling, or creeping thing." 
The word in the original for " bring forth abundantly " 
is the future tense of the verb shaurats^ which cor- 
responds to the noun sherets. A literal translation 
w^ould be, " Let the waters crawl with the crawling 
thing," implying how great was to be the abundance 
of these animals. And this idea of abundance is re- 
peated in the twenty-first verse, where we are told that 
the waters did bring forth these reptiles abundantly. 
But it is again repeated, in the twenty-second verse, 
that "God blessed them, saying. Be fruitful, and multi- 
ply, and fill the waters in the seas." This evidently 
implies that, on the fifth day, the waters were to swarm 
with reptiles. 

In the twenty-first verse we are told that some of 
these creatures were to be of vast size. Our translation 
says, "And God created great whales." It was very 
natural that this should be the translation of those who 
thought that Moses was speaking about fish ; inasmuch 
as the whale is the largest of fish. But the twentieth 
verse declares that these animals which the sea brought 


forth were reptiles^ not fish, and the whale is not a rep- 
tile. The Hebrew word, here translated whales, is tan- 
neenim. It is of frequent occurrence in Scripture. It 
is translated " whale " on two other occasions only ; but I 
suppose the translators must have thought themselves 
justified in translating it "whale," because that seemed to 
them to be its meaning in the passage we are considering. 
On one other occasion it is three times translated " ser- 
pent." On all others, it is rendered " dragon." It is 
a great puzzle to lexicographers. Gesenius gives it three 
meanings : first, a water-serpent, sea-monster, dragon ; 
second, a land-serpent, dragon ; third, a crocodile (not 
whale). But what a dragon is, it would be difficult for 
any one to explain. The root meaning of the word 
tanneen is a long animal, from taunan^ which means to 
extend. And one thing is very certain, and evident to 
any one who will be at the pains to examine, that the 
animal into which Moses' rod was turned is called both 
Nahash (which ordinarily means serpent), and also tan- 
neen. This would seem to imply that tanneen some- 
times means a serpent ; which is a long animal. It is 
clear, too, that on four other occasions, once in the 
Psalms, Ixxiv. 13, twice in Isaiah, xxvii. 1, li. 9, and once 
in Ezekiel, xxix. 3, it means a crocodile, which is also a 
long animal. It is still further certain that tanneen is 
a name applied both to animals living on the land and 
in the water, and therefore is not a whale. Tanneenim 
are in various places represented as having hard heads, 
and being difficult to kill (as for example, the croco- 
dile); also as crying, as snuffing up the wind, as dwell- 
ing in the ruins of cities, as being long animals, as 
being poisonous, and as biting. But there is no animal 


that seems to fill all these conditions except the lizard 
kind. But this cannot be doubted, that all authority 
proves that the crocodile or lizard kind, and the serpent 
together^ will answer to every peculiarity of the tanneen 
of Scripture ; and therefore those great tanneenim of 
the fifth day were large animals either of the serpent or 
crocodilian character. But if serpents, they must be 
reptile serpents as well as swimming serpents ; for they 
were created in conformity to the command that the 
waters should bring forth reptiles. 

There is only one other circumstance in this connec- 
tion ; and that is, that in the order of narration of 
Scrijjture, their creatiofi is spoken of before that of 
fowls ; and therefore, in conformity to the rule which 
has always hitherto been observed, it may be expected 
that they we7'e created before fowls. Let me now re- 
peat what is said of the first class of animals that were 
created on the fifth, day. First, they were to be brought 
forth by the waters ; secondly, they were to be reptiles ; 
thirdly, they were to be azV-breathing animals ; fourthly, 
they were to be veri/ numerous ; fifthly, there were to 
be notably large animals among them, of a crocodilian 
or lizard-like type, and of a serpent-like appearance; 
sixthly, in the time of their creation they were to pre- 
cede the creation of fowls, although both classes wei;e 
to exist during this period. This is the Scriptural 
record. What is the geological record of the Mesozoic 
Era, the fifth day of Holy Scripture ? Does it speak of 
reptiles as making their appearance during this era? It 
does. It declares that they are the great prominent /ea- 
tu7'e of the era; insomuch that geologists speak of it as 
the Mesozoic, or reptilian age. Dana says, '' Mesozoic, or 


mediaeval time, in geological history, comprises but one 
age, — the reptilian. In the course of it tlie class of 
reptiles passed its culmination ; that is, its species 
increased in number^ size, and diversity of forms, until 
they vastly exceeded in each of these respects the reptiles 
of either earlier or later time." Secondly, were these rep- 
tiles animals brought forth by the ivater? They tvere. 
A great portion of them lived in the seas, and never left 
it. There were also numerous tribes of crocodilians, 
amphibious animals which were fitted to live either on 
the land or under the water. Besides these, there were 
land reptiles, which generally dwelt upon the land. 
Yet a large proportion of them are said to have occupied 
the marshes and estuaries (Dana, 199), and hence were 
aquatic in their habits and propensities. Thirdly, 
were these reptiles air-breathing animals ? They ivere. 
In the age immediately preceding, God had, by means 
of the enormously luxuriant vegetation of the period, 
abstracted an immense quantity of carbonic acid gas 
from the atmosphere. This gas is the life of plants, 
but, in the quantity (in which it first existed), was 
poisonous to almost all animal life. But God, having 
purged the atmosphere of this animal poison, created 
on the fifth day creatures different from all of those 
inhabitants of the earth which had hitherto lived upon 
it, and which dwelt almost exclusively beneath the 
waters. He formed creatures which should breathe the 
air of heaven. Of course this was the case with the 
land reptiles, and also with the amphibians^ of which I 
have just spoken. But it was also true of reptiles that 
lived exclusively in the waters; as, for example, the 
notable Ichthyosaurs and Plesiosaurs of that period, 


which are distinctly described as air-breathing animals. 
Fourthly, were reptiles numerous during this period? 
They were exceedmyly numerous. For this, you re- 
member, was emphatically the reptilian age. Speaking 
of those which dwelt in the sea only., Le Coiite (page 
441) says that the variety of them (that is, of the classes 
of them) was immense. How much more, then, must 
this be true of the whole mass of them, taking into con- 
sideration the individuals of each class ! And how fully 
does it justify the command of God in Holy Scripture, 
^^ Fill the waters in the sea ! " Fifthly, were there any 
reptiles of large size^ of the crocodile or lizard kind, or 
of a serpent-like order ? Most ivonderfully is this true of 
this period. Land and air and sea swarmed with end- 
less numbers of gigantic reptiles. Le Conte declares 
that huge reptiles formed the distinguishing feature of 
this age. He says : " Their number and variety are so 
great, that we can only select a few from each order for 
description." In our own time the largest reptiles are 
not longer than twenty-five feet, but these reptiles were 
from fifteen to seventy feet in length. And in the 
girth of their bodies, some of them ranged from four- 
teen to twenty-two feet. Besides these were vast num- 
bers of Mosasaurs, immense serpent-like reptiles ; some 
of them seventy-five to eighty feet in length, — the sea- 
serpents as they have been called, of the Mesozoic Era. 
Finally, did these reptiles appear before the fowls 
of the Mesozoic age ? They did. This Mesozoic Era is 
divided into three periods, called respectively, the Tri- 
assic, the Jurassic, and the Cretaceous periods. Large 
numbers of huge reptiles appeared in the first of these 
periods ; whereas the first animals that could be classed 


SiS fowls did not make their appearance until the second 
of the Mesozoic periods. It is true that it was formerly 
thought that certain tracks on the banks of the Con- 
necticut river were the tracks of gigantic birds of the 
Triassic period ; but it is now generally agreed that the 
probability is that they were the tracks of reptiles 
whose feet were similar to those of birds. We have 
already said that foiuls are declared by the Scriptures 
to have been created during this period. " God said, 
Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving crea- 
ture that hath life, and foivls that may fly above the 
earth in the open firmament of heaven." In the next 
verse we are told that God did create " every winged 
fowl after his kind." And in the twenty-second verse it 
said, " Let fowl multiply in the earth." There are sev- 
eral points here to be noted. First, it is said that God 
did create fowls during that period. But what are we 
to understand hj foivls? That it includes birds cannot 
be questioned. But does it mean birds, and birds only ? 
Our English lexicographers agree in defining the word 
"fowl," as meaning dk flying animal., on the ground that it 
is derived from the Greek pJieugo., and the Latin /^^^^o, 
fugo^ and volo., all of which mean to fly. On the like 
ground we would emphasize this meaning in the text, 
because the Hebrew noun gnop., which is translated 
"fowl," is derived from the verb gnoup, which means to 
fly. Gesenius gives wing as the primary meaning of the 
word translated " fowl " ; and says that the word means 
the "winged tribes." Indeed, in the twenty-second 
verse it is expressly said that they were winged fowl; 
in distinction probably from flying animals that did not 
have wings ; as for example the flying squirrel. Sec- 


ondly, it says that they flew in the open firmament of 
heaven ; thirdly, we are told that they were to be nu- 
merous; because God said, "Let fowl multiply in the 
earth " ; lastly, our translation says that they were 
" brought forth out of the water." 

Let us turn to the geological record, and see whether 
it acknowledges the truth of the inspired statement. 
You will see that it does so, fulli/ and minutely/. First, 
were fowl ^rea^ec? during this era ? They were. There 
is no proof of the existence of any kind of winged 
flying creature during the first of the three Mesozoic 
periods, inasmuch as they were to be preceded by the 
reptiles, which did abound during this period. But 
winged reptiles, called pterosaurs, made their appear- 
ance in the seco7id Mesozoic period. These were fowls, 
in that they had wings, and flew through the air. They 
were of various kinds, the most noted of which is the 
pterodactyl, and of which there is a variety of kinds. 
They were somewhat like bats ; but were very varied 
in size. While some were small, others were enor- 
mous creatures, whose wings, when extended, measured 
twenty feet from tip to tip. There were also, during 
this period, genuine birds, having feathers, with feath- 
ered wings and tails, remarkable for reptilian charac- 
teristics, in that they had jointed or vertebrated tails 
as long as their bodies. By this I mean, not that their 
tails, with the feathers, were as long as their bodies, but 
that when the tails were stripped of the feathers, they 
were still as long as the bodies. They also had claws 
attached to their wings. During the third Mesozoic 
period there was an addition to the number and kinds 
of birds. There were enormous reptilian birds, with 


jaws four feet long, and a spread of wing of twenty- 
five feet. At least six species of siich birds have re- 
cently been found in the chalk lands of our own Far 
West. Only fourteen or fifteen years ago as many as 
twenty species of birds were found by a single indi- 
vidual in the chalk lands of New Jersey and Kansas. 
These birds were less reptile-like than those of the 
second Mesozoic period, and approximated more to the 
birds of the present day. Secondly, did these winged 
animals and birds fly in the open firmament of heaven? 
It is universally conceded that they did, and that they 
were not constructed like the ostrich, with wings too 
small to sustain the weight of the body. There may 
have been some of this sort, but generally they were 
built for flying, and no one acquainted with the subject 
doubts that oftentimes the firmament of heaven must 
have been filled with them. Thirdly, were they nu- 
merous as God said they should be? There is no doubt 
that they were numerous, and, probably, very numerous. 
There were various species of the pterodactyl, and there 
must have been untold numbers of individuals. But 
the pterodactyl is only one of several genera of winged 
reptiles. Besides these, there was a variety of reptilian 
birds; and only a few years since, as I have already 
stated, a single explorer discovered twenty species of 
genuine birds in a limited area. But we cannot doubt 
that these are only ?i fragment of what remains to be dis- 
covered. Finally, what evidence does Geology give 
that these flying creatures were brought forth from the 
waters? I answer, Whether we adopt the reading of 
the text, or the more literal rendering of the margin, the 
idea seems to be that fowl were brought forth from the 


waters. I will, therefore, not consume time by discuss- 
ing the question. I must confess, however, that, from 
early childhood, this always struck me as something 
very strange and unaccountable, that fowls should be 
said to have been brought forth from the waters. Be- 
cause the feathered tribes that we are acquainted with 
are generally land animals. But Geology throws won- 
derful light upon this mystery. Because it shows us, 
first, that reptiles were brought forth from the waters ; 
secondly, that the first flying animals were flying rep- 
tiles, and are supposed to have had the power of swim- 
ming as well as of flying. Thus we see the first fliers 
ascending, as it were, out of the water in which they 
swam, i7ito the air, in which they flew. Next we see 
reptilian hirds^ with whose habits we are not acquainted, 
but who can hardly have failed in the general reptilian 
propensity for the water. Finally, we have Mrds^ less 
reptile-like, and more like modern birds; but, strange 
to say, at least eighteen out of the twenty species re- 
cently discovered are declared by naturalists to be 
water-fowl. And now, in conclusion, I ask you to 
say whether our examination of the work of the fourth 
and fifth days of Scripture exposes any inconsistency be- 
tween the teaching of Scripture and that of Geology or 
Natural Science? I have already spoken of the won- 
derful coincidence of the Scriptural and geological ac- 
counts of the work of the fourth day, although that 
work was viewed from two entirely different stand- 
points: one record describing the heavens; the other, 
the earth. But mark the ivonderful harmony in the 
Scriptural and geological records of the work of the 
fifth day. Here the geological era and the Scriptural 


are precisely the same. The Mesozoic Era and the fifth 
day of Scripture begin and end at exactly the same 
time. Is it not a very notable circumstance that Scrip- 
ture and Geology should concur in saying that this was 
the age of reptiles and of fowl ? Is it not notable that 
they should both say that these are the two, and the 
only two, marked characteristics of this age ? Is it not 
notable that they should both lay greater stress upon 
the reptilian than the hird-\\kQ character of the age, 
and concur in placing the appearance of fowls after 
that of the reptiles? Is it not notable that they should 
agree as to the reptiles being azV-breathing reptiles? 
and also as to the number of both reptiles and birds, 
and especially as to the immense numbers and size of 
the reptiles? and also as to the fact that fowls were 
brought forth by the waters ? No, there is no conflict 
here. Again it is all harmony. And what reasonable 
person can believe it possible that this amazing and 
most accurate description of the work of the fifth day 
could "have been mere guess-work on the part of the 
author of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis? 
And, when taken in connection with all the wonderful 
coincidences of the four preceding days, is not he a 
rash man who will speak slightingly of the inspiration 
of Moses? 



Lecture Y. 


SIXTH DAY. — GEN. I. 24-27. 

WE have at length reached the last of the six days 
of the creation. As the fifth day corresponded 
with the Mesozoic, or third period of geologists, so 
does the sixth day correspond with their fourth and 
last great period, namely, the Cenozoic period. On the 
fifth day were created a great variety and multitude 
of animals that were brought forth by the luaters^ con- 
sisting of reptiles and fowls. On this, the sixth day, 
the animals were brought forth by the la7id. " And 
God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature 
after his kind." 

We find on this day two great divisions of animals 
created : first, the lower orders of land animals ; sec- 
ondly, man. 

We will consider them separately ; and, first, we will 
note w^hat is said of the lower orders of land animals, 
as their creation is first mentioned. First, you will 
observe that these animals are represented to be of 
three different sorts: first, cattle; second, creeping 
things ; third, beasts. It is difficult, however, to under- 
stand exactly w^hat are meant by cattle, and exactly 


the line of distinction between them and what are called 
beasts. The root meaning of the words translated 
cattle and beasts respectively will not determine this 
matter. The original word for cattle is behama^ the 
root meaning of which is a dumb creature. The word 
for beast is hai, which means a living creature. But as 
all of the lower orders of animals are both dumb and 
alive, we find in their root meanings no line of distinc- 
tion between them. It is certain, however, that the 
Hebrew word behama, or " cattle " (as it is in our transla- 
tion), does not mean simply animals of the ox species. 
Among Americans, the word "cattle" is commonly ap- 
plied exclusively to this one species of domestic animals. 
But this is a provincialism. And you will find by con- 
sulting your dictionary that the word " cattle " includes 
not only the ox species, but all kinds of domestic quad- 
rupeds^ —horses, asses, mules, sheep, goats, hogs, etc. 
A.nd thus the word is used in Scripture, as, for example. 
Genesis xlvii. 16, 17. When the Egyptians had paid Jo- 
seph all their money for food, he said to them, "Give your 
cattle if money fail. And they brought their cattle unto 
Joseph ; and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for 
horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, 
and for asses." Here you will perceive that horses, 
flocks, and asses are numbered among the cattle brought 
to Joseph, as well as the cattle of the herds. An exam- 
ination of the passages where the word behama occurs 
will show that it does commonly refer to domestic quad- 
rupeds, but not always, as on one occasion the lion is 
spoken of as the strongest of the behama of the forest. 
And in Jeremiah xix. 7, God threatens the Jews to give 
their carcasses " to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, 


and for the behama of the earth." In both of these cases, 
and a few others, the behama are ranked with wild 
beasts. Gesenius regards the word behama.^ here trans- 
lated "cattle," as applying properly to the larger class of 
quadrupeds, and also as embracing domestic quadrupeds 
generally. A-nd this seems to be as near to a correct 
definition of it as it is possible to get. These, then, are 
one class of animals created, according to Scripture, on 
the sixth day ; namely, large quadrupeds, and domestic 
quadrupeds generally. 

Secondly, creeping things are represented as having 
been created on the sixth day. "And God said, Let 
the earth briiTg forth the living creature after his kind, 
cattle, and creeping fhing.'^ I had occasion to remark 
that when on the fifth day it is said that " God created 
great whales and every living creature that moveth,'^ 
the word " moveth " in the Hebrew was a part of the 
verb raumas^ and that raumas^ strictly speaking, means 
"creeps," or "crawls." And we find a confirmation of 
this in the passage now under consideration. For the 
Hebrew word here translated "creeping thing" is remes. 
And if the noun remes means a " creeping thing," so 
the verb raumas means " creeps." But what are the 
creeping things brought forth by the earth? Evidently 
this applies pre-eminently to snakes. Therefore, accord- 
ing to Scripture, snakes were a creation of this sixth 

Thirdly, "the beast of the earth" was now created. 
The three classes of creatures named as brought forth by 
the earth are " cattle, and the creeping thing, and the 
beast of the earth.^'' I have already stated that it is diffi- 
cult to draw the line of demarcation between the cattle 


and the beasts in this text, because the word for beasts is 
on other occasions variously applied. In Leviticus xi. 2 
it is included in those which in the passage we are 
discussing, are transhited " cattle." The Lord is rep- 
resented as saying, " Speak unto the children of Israel, 
sajang. These are the beasts which ye shall eat 
among all the beasts that are on the earth." But the 
second word for beasts in this passage is behama. 
On the ivhole^ however, we find that the word for the 
third class created on the sixth day, and translated 
"beasts," applies for the most part to wild animals; and 
especially to such as are of a ravenous, fierce nature. 
The first and third classes taken ^o^e^Aerf therefore, in- 
chide all kinds of land quadrupeds ; all of what are 
called the mammalian species of animals; that is to say, 
all kinds of animals that suckle their young. Birds 
and fish and reptiles do not suckle their young, and 
therefore are 7iot mammalians. Whereas all quadrupeds 
and mankind do suckle them, and consequently are 

But I have all along called your attention to this 
fact, that in all statements of the events of creation 
hitherto, the inspired writer has observed an exact 
order ; and that this order is observed not only in a 
general way, as to the main work of the respective 
days^ but also in regard to all the particular work 
of each day; so that whatever particular thing is first 
mentioned as being done, that thing in fact tvas first 
done. As, for example, in the work of the fifth day 
the waters are commanded to bring forth reptiles and 
fowls. It is said then that they did bring forth reptiles 
and fowls. Here both in the command and in the 


statement of what was done reptiles are mentioned 
firsts fowls afterward. And accordingly, in point of 
fact.; reptiles were first created^ and fowls afterward. 
But in the passage we are considering, as to the animals 
brought forth by the earth., there is a remarkable de- 
parture from a rule always observed hitherto. Which 
rule had been to say, that God had constantly called for 
such and such things to be in a certain order., and then 
follows the statement that these very things were; 
and precisely the same order as before is observed in 
naming them. But, in this work of the sixth day, I 
say there is a wide departure from the rule so carefully 
observed hitherto. In the call for the animals to be 
created, they are named in the order already stated : 
first, cattle ; second, the creeping thing ; third, the beast 
of the earth. But in the next verse, when it is stated 
what God made., it is, first, the heast ; second, the 
cattle; third, the creeping thing. The order is com- 
pletely changed. That which is named first in the call 
for the animals is named second in the statement of 
what was done. That which was second in the call is 
third in the statement. That which was third in the 
call is first in the statement. No class of animals 
occupies the same place in the statement of what was 
done that it did in the call for them. This struck me 
with much surprise when it was first noticed, and the 
question occurred to me. What does it mean ? It was 
evidently a renunciation of all order, and the onl}^ con- 
clusion I could come to was, that there was no order in 
the creation of these quadrupeds and creeping things ; 
and consequently that they must all have been created 
at the same time. For if they had not been created at 


the same time, there must have been some order in their 
creation. And it is probable that the creation of all 
these three classes of animals took place at the begin- 
ning of the sixth day. For as God was working, it is 
not probable that he would defer to begin his work 
after the day had begun. 

Let us now recapitulate the points which we have 
noted in the Scriptural statement of the work of the 
sixth day, in so far as the creation of the lower orders 
of land animals is concerned. First, that land animals 
were created on this day ; secondly, that large quadru- 
peds generally, and domestic animals in particular, were 
created on this day ; thirdly, that creeping things were 
then created; fourthly, that wild animals, and especially 
those that now are of a fiercer nature, were created; 
fifthly, that no order was observed in the creation of 
these animals, leading to the inference that all kinds 
were created at once, and in the beginning of the day. 

Let us now turn to the geological record of this period, 
and compare its testimony with the testimony of Holy 
Scripture. But before doing so, let me explain that 
this Cenozoic Era is divided by geologists into two 
periods, namely the Tertiary Period and the Quaternary 
Period ; and that each of these two periods is subdivided 
into three epochs. The Tertiary is divided into the 
Eocene, the Meiocene, and the Pliocene. The Quater- 
nary is divided into the Glacial, the Champlain, and the 
Terrace Epochs. Bearing in mind these divisions of 
the Cenozoic Period, let us seek their testimony as to 
the events that then occurred. And, first, as the pre- 
vious period was noted for animals brought forth by 
the waters. Was this Cenozoic Period, in like manner, 


noted for animals brought forth by. the land, as the 
Scriptures declare that it was? Geology states most 
emphatically that it was. It informs us that in this 
period, in so far as the life of the period is concerned, 
the whole face of nature is changed. All the mighty 
reptiles of the former age have disappeared, and the 
reptiles found in the Cenozoic Era are comparatively 
small in size and few in number. But in this Cen- 
ozoic Era, this sixth day of the Scriptures, the earth 
is filled with la7id animals of every imaginable, and, in- 
deed, wwimaginable, variety and kind. They are the 
monarchs of the era, as reptiles were the monarchs of 
the Mesozoic Era. 

Secondly, Were large quadrupeds and the ordinary 
domestic quadrupeds created at this time ? They were. 
All agree that large true mammalian animals abounded 
throughout this entire period, even from its very com- 
mencement. In addition to animals akin to those now 
in existence, there were vast numbers and many dif- 
ferent kinds of huge quadrupeds, many of them far 
exceeding in size any that now exist upon the earth. 
We read of the dinothere, a huge animal, with a skull 
three feet long, to which was attached a proboscis. It 
had two huge tusks bent downward from the lower 
jaw. The distance from the points of the tusks to the 
top of the skull was five feet. There was then an ani- 
mal called the sivathere, a huge four-horned antelope, 
as tall as an elephant, with two very wide horns in the 
back part of the head. The bramathere was a similar 
animal, of like gigantic size. There were also many 
varieties of the rhinoceros, of the hippopotamus, and of 
the elephant. There were also varieties of the masto- 


don, which was one-third taller than the elephant, and 
in every way larger. There was also the huge megathe- 
rium, eighteen feet long, and fourteen and a half feet in 
girth ; and the monster tinoceras, whose head alone was 
four feet long. These were some of the huge quadru- 
peds which might properly be classed among the hehama 
of the period. But there were also, from the earliest 
times, domestic animals. In the very opening of the 
Cenozoic Era there were animals of the horse and hog 
families. At quite an early period there were also 
camels, sheep, oxen, cats, and dogs. 

Thirdly, Were land creeping things, especially snakes^ 
created at this time? They were. There was an abun- 
dance of reptiles created during the Mesozoic Era, the 
fifth day of Scripture ; but all geologists agree that 
there were no snakes among them. This is the more 
remarkable from the fact that in the immense variety 
of reptiles of the fifth day it would very naturally 
be supposed that there tvould have been some of the 
true snake species. It would seem to us much more 
likely that the reptiles brought forth by the waters 
would be associated with snakes than with birds. But 
Moses tells us that the land reptile, of which the snake 
is chief, was formed on the sixth day, and the bird on 
the fifth. And Geology tells us the same thing. 

Fourthly, Were wild animals and quadrupeds gener- 
ally — of smaller size — formed during this Cenozoic 
Era? They were. Animals similar to the wild animals 
now living, besides a great many extinct species of simi- 
lar animals, abounded in this period. Among the ani- 
mals of the era we find many that are familiar to us, — 
the camelopard, the antelope, the musk ox, the hyena. 


the tiger, the panther, the wolf, the deer, the stag, the 
fox, the squirrel, the mole, and others, especially mon- 
keys. All these animals of which 1 have spoken, of all 
three classes (cattle, creeping things, and the beast of 
the earth), made their appearance on the earth in this 
Cenozoic period, the sixth day of Scripture, and none of 
them had ever appeared before this time. 

But I stated that God is represented as calling iov these 
animals in this order : cattle, creeping thing, and beast 
of the earth ; but that in the next verse, which gives us 
an account of their actual creation, the order is entirely 
transposed ; and the place of each sort is different from 
what it was before. And this, you perceive, is a renun- 
ciation of all order in their creation, and consequently 
implies that they must have been created at the same 
time, and probably in the beginning of the era. And 
such is the clear and positive testimony of geologists 
on this subject. For all of these three classes of ani- 
mals made their appearance in the Eocene epoch, wliich 
is the very beginning of the Tertiary period, and the 
Tertiary is the beginning of the Cenozoic Era. Remem- 
ber, too, that both those styled cattle and those called 
beasts of the earth are all of them mammals (animals 
which suckle their young). But Le Conte says that with 
the opening of the Eocene the earth seems to swarm with 
mammals. "And this," he says, "is true, not only in 
Europe, but also on the Western plains and Rocky 
Mountain region." " True placental mammals," he 
says, " not only appear suddenly and in great numbers, 
but of nearly all orders^ even the highest, except man, 
namely, monkeys." In like manner, Dana says, "In the 
early Eocene^ at the opening of the age of mammals, 


appeared herbivores and carnivores of large size." But 
you will ask, How was it with regard to the reptile ? 
Le Conte says, •' Five species of snakes, some of them 
eight feet long, have been found in the Eocene of 
Wyoming, and several also in Europe.'" That is to 
sa}^, that they then appeared, in the very beginning of 
the era, on both continents. Dana repeatedly afBrms 
that, while snakes occur in the Eocene, they never 
were found before this time. His words are, ''The 
first of true snakes occur in the Eocene." And again, 
" No fossil snakes have been found below the Cenozcic, 
although large reptiles abounded in the Mesozoic." Thus 
you see that all three classes of animals created this day, 
were created in the very beginning of the era, and you 
also see how surprisingly the Scriptural and geological 
records correspond in respect to the order of the crea- 

But although the loiver orders of animals were cre- 
ated together, and this is intimated by the peculiar 
arrangeinent adopted by the inspired writer, yet he 
does not intimate that man was created at the same 
time that the other animals were, but does very clearly 
imply that he was created some time after all the rest. 
Let us consider the account of the creation of man. 
In verses 24 and 25, God speaks of the creation of the 
inferior animals. He calls for them in verse 24, says in 
verse 25 that he raade them, and concludes with the 
assertion, "God saw that it was good." He then pro- 
ceeds afterivards^ and (as a matter entirely distinct from 
the former creation) he tells us of the creation of man 
in these words: "And God said. Let us make man in 
our image, after our likeness : and let them have do- 


minion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of 
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and 
over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 
So God created man in his own image, in the image of 
God created he him ; male and female created he them." 

The superiority of man and his dominion over all 
other animals, and over all the earth, which are here 
asserted, are universally conceded^ and it is not neces- 
sary to discuss them. We shall consider his creation 
simply in its. geological bearings. It appears from these 
words of Scripture, first, that man was created during 
the sixth day of Scripture. It is so distinctly stated. 
Secondly, it is intimated that he was created a consider- 
able time after the other creatures of this day. This 
appears not only from the fact that his creation is me7i- 
tioned after that of the others, but also from the cir- 
cumstance that it is not at all associated with that of the 
other animals ; but a subsequent and separate account 
is given of his creation. But if he was created after the 
other animals, it follows necessarily that the creation of 
man was the last great act of creation, the grand finale 
of the labors of the preceding six days' work. 

This is the Scriptural. What is the geological record 
on this subject? Does Geology teach us that man was 
created during the Cenozoic period? It does. The 
stoutest unbeliever, he who is most anxious to contra- 
dict the Divine record, is obliged to admit that the cre- 
ation of man did take place in the Cenozoic Era, and 
not before. 

Secondly, does Geology teach that man was created 
after the other three classes of animals of which I have 
just spoken? It does. All geologists admit it. For 


we have se-en that Geology teaches us that all the othe)- 
three classes of land animals were created in the Uo- 
cene epoch, in the very beginning of the fit^st period of 
the Cenozoic Era. But I have never heard of the most 
fanatical even of unbelieving geologists claiming so high 
an antiquity for the human species. All geologists 
admit that man was the crowning work of God. And 
all historical Geology that I am acquainted with ends, 
as the Scripture does, with the account of his appear- 
ance upon this earth. 

And now, in reviewing the work of this day, I would 
call your attention to this fact : that while there is no 
collision whatever between the Scriptural and geological 
records, there are, on the other hand, numerous and 
remarkable coincidences in their statements. Is it not 
remarkable, first, that Scripture and Geology should 
concur in making the creation of air-breathing water 
and land animals the work, not of the same, but of two 
distinct and separate periods? Is it not remarkable 
that they should concur in saying that they were suc- 
cessive periods, with no interval between them, but the 
one following immediately after the other? Is it not 
remarkable that they should concur as to which was 
firsts and which second in order, both affirming that 
in the former period the air-breathing ivater animals 
appeared, and in the latter, the air-breathing land ani- 
mals ? Is it not remarkable that both Scripture and Geol- 
ogy should separate snakes from the reptile period, to 
which we would naturally suppose that they belonged ? 
and should both identify birds with the z^a^er period, 
although we would naturally suppose them to be land 
animals ? Is it not remarkable that the classes of ani- 


mals mentioned as created on the sixth day should be 
the creation which, according to both Scripture and 
Geology, pre-eminently marks the Cenozoic period? Is 
it not very remarkable, that, on every previous day, 
when it is said that certain things should be done, and 
these things are mentioned in a certain order, after- 
wards, when it is said what ivas done, these things are 
always mentioned in the same order as before, and the 
order in which they are named is always the order in 
which they were created. But on Ms day only this 
rule is departed from. They are called for in one order. 
They are mentioned as having been made in an entirely 
different order, thus clearly intimating that their crea- 
tion was to be at the same time, and not in successive 
epochs. And, accordingly, Geology testifies that in 
this instance, and in this instance only^ the creation of 
the different classes of things mentioned ivas at the 
same time, and not successively. Finally, is it not very 
wonderful that Scripture and Geology should both affirm 
that man was the great end, the grand climax of all 
things and beings formed upon this globe ? But while 
there is no collision between the testimony of Genesis i. 
and Geology as to the period and as to the order of 
man's appearance, yet there has been a great and most 
earnest effort on the part of some geologists, and others, 
to prove that man has been longer upon the earth than 
OTHER parts of Scripture represent him to have been. 
This series of lectures, therefore, would be incomplete 
if this last refuge of unbelief were not uncovered and 
shown to be utterly incapable of affording any shelter. 

We proceed, therefore, to the consideration of that sub- 
ject, the teaching of Geology as to the antiquity of man. 



A CCORDING to the Scriptural account, only a short 
■^-^ thue has elapsed (geologically speaking) since the 
creation of man. Different chronologists vary in their 
calculations. The system of chronology adopted in our 
authorized version of the Holy Scriptures (and which 
is generally recognized) is that of Archbishop Usher. 
According to it, it is just 5893 years since Adam and 
Eve were made. According to Doctor Hale, however, 
who is also regarded as reliable authority, it is 7300 
years. Some geologists, however, would fain make it 
hundreds of thousands of years, perhaps a half-million 
of years, since that time. Le Conte, whose Geology is 
much in vogue at this time, says : " It may be one hun- 
dred thousand years, or it may be only ten thousand 
years; but more probably the former than the latter." 
Indeed, he constantly endeavors to prove that it was 
about the middle of the Champlain epoch, which is the 
middle of the Quaternary period, and, according to 
geological ideas, was quite one hundred thousand years 
ago. I am not aware, however, that any Scriptural 
chronologist of any authority reckons so much as ten 
thousand years, which is the least period assigned by 
Le Conte as possible to be accepted, since man was 
placed upon this earth. It is manifest, therefore, that 
all these geological computations (however they may be 


intended) are, in fact, a blow aimed at the Divine in- 
spiration of tlie Holy Scriptures. 

But all-important to the temporal and eternal well- 
being of mankind as is faith in the Scriptures, and 
overwhelmingly and apparently conclusive as are the 
arguments in favor of their authenticity^ the reasons 
assigned on geological grounds for repudiating them 
ought, before accepting them, to be of the most satis- 
factory, and, indeed, incontrovertible^ character. I have 
read such as have come under my observation with 
eare^ and will endeavor to present those most relied 
upon, with candor ; but as to the weight of those 
reasons, I will ask you to judge. Le Conte, in open- 
ing the discussion of this subject, makes this remark: 
" There has been recently far too much eagerness to 
find facts which overthrow accepted beliefs^ and to ac- 
cept them on this account alone^ Here, then, is a 
confession on the part of this eminent geologist, that 
there is a great want of candor among his brother geol- 
ogists, and a very strong desire on their part to make 
the most of anything which will give the least plausible 
pretext for undermining the Christian faith. In other 
words, he labels their arguments with the words " Be- 
ware of counterfeits." But he sees the fallacy of their 
arguments, who would overthrow Scripture by making 
man's period upon the earth five hundred thousand 
years ; and although I understand that he professes to 
be a Christian man, still his views are hardly less hostile 
to the Christian faith, albeit he is disposed to claim as 
man's period only one hundred thousand years. 

And here let me say in regard to the proofs upon which 
he, and all others like him, rely, that they are in their very 


nature most uncertain. There never has been found, so 
far as I can learn, a human skeleton, or so much as one 
human bo7ie, as an old rock fossil. All that ever have 
been appealed to, have been discovered on the surface 
of the earth, in caves, or river beds, or among bones of 
extinct animals, or among piles of shells, or as shell 
rock, or as bone rock, or a comparatively few feet under 
the soil. And therefore all the guesses of unbelieving 
geologists as to their antiquity are, in their very nature, 

But let us come to particulars ; and I will take their 
very best proofs that I have found. I find in the 
Encyclopedia Britannica a case reported of a human 
skeleton found in the delta of the Mississippi River, 
under four forests, and computed to have been deposited 
there some fifty thousand years ago. We are not told, 
however, in what part of the delta this discovery was 
made ; that is, how many miles it was from the mouth 
of the Mississippi River. But we know that it could 
not have been far, as it was in the delta. Neither could 
it have been deep, for I doubt if it is practicable to sink 
a shaft twenty-five feet in any part of the delta, on 
account of the water, which would resist all attempts 
of this sort. But let the discovery have been made in 
the most remote part of the delta from the Gulf of 
Mexico, and at the greatest depth we can imagine, what 
does it amount to? We have the authority of Le Conte 
hiaiself for saying that the Mississippi River is pushing 
the delta out into tlie Gulf of Mexico at the rate of 
one mile for every sixteen years. If this rate of land 
formation has been going on for tivo thousand years 
past, as there is evident reason to suppose it has, then 


during this two thousand years the delta has extended 
one hundred and twenty miles into the Gulf. Conse- 
quently the ivliole of what is now the delta was then a 
part of the Gulf of Mexico ; and this skeleton must 
certainly have been deposited in the delta during that 
time. And as for the four forests, which we would 
fain be led to believe grew there, on the spot, they were 
evidently floated down the Mississippi and lodged there. 
Who has not heard of the Red River rafts ? That trib- 
utary alone^ in the course of two thousand years, might 
furnish material for a dozen forests. And the skeleton 
of fifty thousand years antiquity may have belonged to 
a man who navigated the Mississippi River not fifty 
years previous to its discovery. 

But let us consider what Le Conte has culled from 
the mass of facts set forth by unbelieving geologists, and 
which he considers reliable proof that man existed in the 
middle of the Quaternary period, some one hundred thou- 
sand years ago. Evidently, he must have taken the best 
he could find. First, he and other geologists speak of 
the stone age, of the bronze age, and of the iron age. 
By this they mean that there was first a period when 
men made their utensils of stone, followed by one when 
their utensils were made of bronze ; and finally, by one 
when they were made of iron. But they admit that the 
bronze age and the iron age are comparatively modern. 
And it is only the stone age that can be relied upon to 
carry man back one hundred thousand years. But 
then, they are able to make two ages out of this one. 
They have their Neolithic as well as their Paloeolithic ; 
that is, their neiv as well as their old stone age. 
Le Conte, in his diagram, makes the new stone age to 


correspond with the last epoch of the Quaternary, and 
the old stone age to correspond with the previous 
epoch ; botli more than ten thousand years, and one of 
them one Jiundred thousand years ago. And yet, on 
that very page^ only a few lines heloiv^ he acknoivledges 
that the South Sea Islanders are at this very moment in 
the stone age ; and that the North American Indians 
were so only three ce?ituries ago. And I presume there 
are multitudes in Africa, in New Holland, and Asia, 
that are still in that condition. What evidence, then, 
does the discovery of stone implements in any country 
afford to j^rove that men lived there one hundred thou- 
sand years ago ? Was there ever a verier figment 
devised to mystify the minds of men than this division 
of time into new stone and old stone, into bronze and 
iron ages ? 

But they say the stone age in Europe^ and per- 
haps in some other countries, would carry us back into 
this remote antiquity. I ask in reply. What do we 
know of the condition of any part of Europe, except 
the southeastern corner of it, only three thousand years 
ago, to justify the assumption that the tribes who dwelt 
there did not at that time make their implements in 
great part, and perhaps wholly, of stone? We know 
that all Northern Europe was regarded as in a savage 
state not much more than two thousand years ago. 
Grant Allen, in an essay on "Who was Primitive Man ?" 
and published in the " Fortnightly Review " for Sep- 
tember, 1882, makes these remarks : " There are still 
isolated communities in out-of-the-way parts of Scotland 
which use hand-made pottery of the rudest primeval 
type, and spin with stone ivhorls of the prehistoric 


pattern; while their works of imitative art are ruder 
and more unlike the originals they depict than anything 
ever attempted by the earliest known men." 

The fact is that the material out of which men make 
their implements has little bearing upon the question 
of their antiquity^ but rather upon that of their civiliza- 
tion. Savage and uncultivated men made stone imple- 
ments three thousand years ago, and they make them 
to-day. Civilized men understand the manufacture of 
iron implements to-day ; they did so in the palmy day 
of republican Rome ; tliey did so in the time of Noah, 
and some of his descendants have never forgotten it. 
Indeed, it has been understood in the world ever since 
the days of Tubal-Cain, who was only the sixth in lineal 
descent from Adam. A ivondrous shift, then, are they 
put to who rely upon the discovery of stone implements 
in any country to prove that it was inhabited by men 
one hundred thousand years ago. 

As another principal evidence of this great antiquity, 
it is affirmed by Le Conte, speaking in reference to 
California, that "there seems to be no doubt that the 
works of man have been found, associated with the re- 
mains of animals, both recent and extinct, in the super- 
ficial placer deposits "; that is, of California. By '-^placer 
deposits" is meant deposits of minute parcels of gold 
along with sand and gravel in the beds of rivers. But 
observe, in the first place, that Le Conte does not say 
that the works of man have certainly been found in 
these river beds, but only that there seems to be no 
doubt that they were found there. Which implies that 
it is quite possible that no such finding ever took place, 
or else that it is in nowise certain that the works found 


were really the works of man. But if such works were 
found, what the7if These placer deposits, we are else- 
where informed, are of two kinds, the old and the new. 
This deposit was one of the new sort, — he tells us that 
it was a superficial deposit, — and perhaps, as he informs 
us, the deposit itself was made in the last of the Qua- 
ternary epochs, and not so ver^ long ago, after all. But 
are we to suppose that these human contrivances were 
placed there at the time the deposit tvas made ? I ask, 
Have not men always hunted for gold ? and may they 
not in so doing have dropped some of their utensils in 
the bed of the stream ? He does not tell us what these 
works were. For aught ive know, therefore, they may 
have been left there by some recent miners within the 
past thirty years ; much more by the former Indian 
settlers who dwelt there ever since and before Colum- 
bus discovered America, and who, as we all know, were 
gold-hunters. But it may be said, these "works" — as 
Le Conte calls them — were found along with the bones 
of extinct animals. Very true I But would man be 
kept from searching a river bed for gold because of the 
presence of animal remains there ? Besides, it is also 
said that they were found along with the bones of recent 
animals. What the recent animals were we are not told. 
But we are told what the extinct animals were, and every 
one of them was a mammalian. It is fair to presume, 
therefore, that some of the recent animals, if not all of 
them, were also mammalians. But Le Conte himself 
tells us that none of the recent mammalian animals lived 
in the Quaternary period. But if they did not exist 
so long ago as in the Quaternary, their hones must 
have been deposited in the river bed since that period. 


And if the bones of animals could get there since the 
Quaternary period, why, I ask, in the name of all that 
is reasonable, might not the works of man also have got 
there since that period? I ask, then, if this reliable 
argument is not rubbish. 

But again we are assured that it is a positive fact^ 
well attested by the careful examination of many 
scientists, that on the banks of the liver Somme, in its 
terraces, near Abbeville, chipped flint instruments were 
found in undisturbed gravel, associated with the bones 
of the mammoth, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, hyena, horse, 
etc. The inference which lie evidently draws, and 
would have us draw, from this is, that these animals 
must have existed more than six thousand years ago, 
and that these flint instruments were deposited there at 
the time these animals lived. I could very easily 
give reasons which make it extremely doubtful as to 
whether these animals preceded man, especially as it is 
not said that more than one af them belonged to an 
extinct species ; but this is not material. It matters not 
how old these animals were ; the finding of the chipped 
flint instruments associated with their hones in undis- 
turbed gravel is no proof whatever of any great antiq- 
uity. For it is a fact well known to those living in the 
region of country in which I myself reside that persons 
are continually finding works wrought by man under 
circumstances /ar more likely to lead to the supposition 
of great antiquity than these flint chippings near 
Abbeville. But we are utterly precluded from such 
supposition by unmistakable evidences of very recent 
origin. Ifc is enough to say of these findings near 
Abbeville that they were on the banks of a river, 


which, as all banks are, are continually changing. Just 
as strange a find occurred in my own experience. 
Some thirty-five years ago, in digging for marl in the 
lands of one of my parishioners, there were found just 
above the marl at a depth of some seven or eight feet 
from the surface of the ground two pieces of iron pot- 
ware. It created great surprise. No one could imagine 
how they could have gotten there. They were given 
to me by my parishioner, and I had ample opportunity 
to examine them. They were associated with the re- 
mains of animals of the Tertiary period. And yet it 
was as plain as day that they got there within the past 
one hundred or one hundred and fifty years. For they 
were clearly some of our own common iron potware. 
Their thickness, their shape, their rings, such as such 
pots now have, left not a shadow of doubt on my mind 
that they were of American or English manufacture, 
and of very recent origin. At the same time the same 
person presented me with a two-ounce glass vial found 
elsewhere, according to my recollection at a depth of 
three or four feet, and about half filled with a viscous 
fluid. It was a long vial, precisely such as were then 
in vogue, and must have been recently deposited ; but 
it is difficult to understand how it got there. 

A far more remarkable case than that recited by Le 
Conte occurred in the town of Washington, N.C. Some 
years since, in digging a well, at the depth of about 
twelve or thirteen feet from the surface, there was found 
about a peck of anthracite coal. To reach it, they dug 
through five feet of very hard clay, then five feet of 
yellow sand, and in the white sand below was found 
the coal. The strata above were apparently undis 


turbed. It was in high, level ground, at a distance of 
one hundred yards or more from the river bank, and 
five hundred miles from any vein of anthracite coal, 
except a small deposit one hundred and fifty miles 
away, in Chatham County. How it got there we cannot 
tell, but it must have got there within the last fifty 
years. For it was the common Q^g coal, such as has 
always been brought to that market. In a marl bed in 
Pitt County, and belonging to a gentleman by the name 
of Worthington, there was found a stone inkstand. It 
was about twelve or thirteen feet below the surface of 
the ground, and was imbedded seven feet in the marl. 
But this does not prove the existence of man here some 
million of years ago in Tertiary times. No ; it was an 
inkstand^ curiously hollowed out of a dark slate-colored 
stone. It was square on the sides, flat on the bottom, 
oval on the top. Its modern origin is evident from the 
fact that it was clearly an inkstand^ with a nipple on 
the top for the insertion of a cork., and with holes on 
the corners of the upper surface, evidently intended for 
quills or steel pens: all of which arrangement is of 
late date. 

There were two other discoveries equally remarkable 
in the same county. Mr. John Randolph found, at a 
depth of seven feet from the surface of the ground, and 
imbedded three feet in the marl, a petrified ham. In gen- 
eral appearance it was precisely such a ham as is now to 
be found in the smoke-houses of the people of that sec- 
tion. Some miles from him, a gun-barrel was found in 
the farm of Mr. Council Dawson. It was four feet under 
ground, and two or three feet in the marl. The barrel 
was in good order, but the lock was gone and the stock 


decayed. After the barrel was found, it was loaded 
with powder and discharged on several occasions. 
Other equally remarkable finds might be mentioned 
of articles evidently of ve?'// recent origin, and yet 
found with associatto7is quite as indicative of remote 
antiquity as the chipped flint implements of the banks 
of the river Somme. Dana mentions some coin of the 
reign of Edward I. of England, found ten feet below the 
bed of the river Dove, and formed into cofiglomerate 
rock. The coin themselves were only six hundred years 
old. There is no telling how much later they were 
dropped into the river. Such discoveries are constantly 
being made. They are far more difficult to account 
for than the chipped flints in question, and yet the evi- 
dence of rece'nt origin is unmistakable. Indeed, the 
finding of these flint chippings is not at all difficult to 
explain ; for nothing is more unsteady and liable to 
constant change than the loamy and gravelly banks 
of a river. It might very easily happen that bits of 
flint should be imbedded in gravel and covered up 
in a time of high water, and that loam to any depth 
might eventually be piled up over it by subsequent 

But that which most of all is relied upon to prove 
the great antiquity of man, is the finding of human 
bones and implements in caves in various parts of 
the world, and associated with the bones of extinct 
races of animals. But I must say that nothing fills 
me with more amazement than that intelligent men 
should adduce such an argument as this to prove the 
antiquity of the human race and expect intelligent men 
to attach the least weight to it. The bones and imple- 


ments of men have been found in caves associated with 
the bones of extinct animals ! What then ? Does that 
prove, as they would have us infer, that the men whose 
bones they were, lived at the same time that these ani- 
mals lived? Suppose a man, lost in such a cave two 
years ago and unable to find his wa}^ out, were to die 
there, would not his bones be found (if found at all) 
associated with the bones of extinct animals? But 
would it be right to infer that the man lived one hun- 
dred thousand years ago? Is it not a notorious fact 
that caves have been inhabited by men from the days 
of Lot, who, with his two daughters, fled to a cave at 
the time of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah ? 
And in how many instances do we read of such inhabi- 
tation of caves during the entire Jewish history ? as, for 
example, by the five kings of Canaan at the cave of 
Makkedah ; by the persecuted Israelites in the days of 
Midianitish, and again in the days of Philistine, power ; 
by David, in the cave of Adullam ; and in other in- 

But it may be said. These bones are sometimes 
found below the surface in the caves. And have not 
caves been used as burying places from the time of 
Abraham, who, with the patriarchs Isaac and Jacob, 
were all buried in a cave in the field of Machpelah ? 
Multitudes of persons have died and been buried in 
caves all over the world for thousands of years past. 
But their bones, when found, will be necessarily found 
beneath the surface, and also associated with the bones 
of whatever animals were in the caves at the time of 
their burial, or which have been deposited there since ; 
but can anything more unreasonable be imagined than 


to infer from these facts that they were cotemporaries 
of the ancient animals whose bones are also deposited 
there ? 

But it is said that in a cave at Engis, on the banks 
of the Meuse, there was found the skull of a man 
in bone breccia beneath a stalagmitic crust. By bone 
breccia is meant bone cemented together by lime ; in 
other words, bone rock. And as stalagmites are hard- 
ened lime, of course bones beneath a stalagmite must be 
bone breccia. Dana instances the discovery of a whole 
human skeleton in shell rock, in Guadaloupe ; but he 
does not hesitate to pronounce upon the man whose 
skeleton it was as having been a fighting Carib two 
hundred years ago. But we can hardly imagine that 
it would take ffty years to convert hone into rock, if 
exposed to the drippings of a stalactite. And as for the 
stalagmite itself which covered the skull, we cannot 
doubt that one of very respectable thickness could be 
formed in less than two hundred years if there had been 
a rapid dripping of limestone water upon it. 

And now I have presented to you the very strongest 
geological proofs of the great antiquity of man that I 
have been able to discover. Do they prove it ? Have 
they any power whatever to raise in your minds a rea- 
sonable donht as to the necessity of man's having been 
created more than six thousand years ago? On the 
contrary, do they so much as prove that man existed 
more than two thousand five hundred years ago? They 
do not to my mind. But I have not quite finished 
Le Conte's argument on this subject. After an elabo- 
rate setting forth of his argument to prove that man 
does not belong exclusively to the recent period, as the 


Scriptures assert (that is, within the last six thousand 
years), but that his origin certainly dates back one 
hundred thousand years, even to the middle of the 
Quaternary, I find this amazing assertion, which I am 
about to recite, and in which, as you will perceive, he 
flatly contradicts the whole of his previous argument. 
Remember that man belongs to the mammalian fauna. 
Le Conte's words are : " The Miocene mammalian fauna 
is totally different from the Eocene, the Pliocene totally 
different from the Miocene, the Quaternary from the 
Pliocene, and the present (that is, the mammalians now 
in existence) from the Quaternary." Now I ask, if the 
present mammalian fauna are totally different from the 
Quaternary, as he here positively asserts, how is it pos- 
sible to put man into the Quaternary? Is he not one 
of the present mammalian fauna? And consequently 
if man existed in the Quaternary, the present mamma- 
lia are not totally different from those of the Quater- 
nary. But we will give him credit for a slip of the pen, 
and suppose that he intended to say that, with the ex- 
ception of some anticipatory animals, and especially of 
anticipatory man, the present mammalians are totally 
different from the Quaternary. But is not this in the 
teeth of a law which he asserts only a few lines pre- 
viously, to the effect that the higher the order of the 
mammalian, the less likely it is to continue, and conse- 
quently as man is the highest of all mammalians, he of 
all is the least likely to have lived in the Quaternary ? 
And especially does this hold, when we consider that 
man appears to be the crowning work of God, the last 
created of all animals. Alas, alas ! to wdiat vain shifts 
and contradictio7is does the deceitfulness of the human 


heart cause men to resort to impair their own faith and 
that of others in tliat blessed Revelation which a merci- 
ful God has made of himself to a benighted and a sinful 
world. But it is indeed all in vain. For the Holy 
Scriptures are in very trutli the word of the Creator of 
all worlds and of all creatures; and he has not left 
us without abundant and certain proofs that they are 
his words. Proofs they are so certain and conclusive 
that any one who will be at the pains to examine 
them, will be thoroughly satisfied that neither Geology 
nor any other branch of Natural Science can possibly 
be antagonistic to them. 

In the course of the lectures which I have delivered 
in your hearing, I have shown you that in all the gen- 
eral eras of Geology and Scripture there is not the 
slightest discord ; that so far as Geology goes^ the great 
eras are the same, and their order is the same. Further 
than this, I have shown you in regard to all the minutim 
of the different eras, in the facts themselves, and in the 
order of their occurrence, that the testimony of Scripture 
on the subject finds its counterpart in the reiterating 
voice of God, and of natural science in every instance 
that Geology and natural science were able to speak 
definitely on the subject. I have also shown you that 
those Scriptural statements which of themselves seem 
to be unreasonable and almost unintelligible have a 
light poured upon them by geological research which 
make them not only easy to be understood^ but which 
also prove them to be most certainly true. So far then, 
is Genesis i. from detracting from the credibility of the 
Holy Scriptures, that it bears upon it^ face the impress 


of its Divine origin ; and we are justified in appealing 
to it as one of the bulwarks of the faith. 

And now, in conclusion, I would say only a few words 
in regard to the cause of infidelity ; I mean the reason 
why men are so exceedingly prone to rush into it. It 
is, I am well assured, because the Scriptures afQrm that 
" God shall bring every work into judgment, with every 
secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." 
It is because God has so constituted every man, that he 
cannot help feeling his accountability for his conduct. 
But poor, erring, sinful man cannot bear the thought of 
being subjected to the searching test of the Judgment 
Day ; and, above all, cannot endure the thought that 
his eternal destiny depends upon the 7'esult of his trial. 
And therefore he is not willing to believe that it is 
really so. He will not believe if he can help it. His 
consciousness of guilt will not suffer him to enjoy any 
peace if he does believe it. Therefore he will search 
heaven and earth in support of somewhat to sustain his 
unbelief, and so to give rest to an unquiet conscience. 
But human unbelief will not make the faith of God of 
none effect. God will not cease to exist, to gratify 
man's desire that there should he no God. And the 
day of account will not be set aside, because men are 
unwilling to answer to Him who gave them their lives, 
for the manner in which they shall have spent them. 
There is a way of relief from the dread of the judgment, 
and from all evil results of the day of trial. God has 
set forth his own Son as a ransom for all sinners, and 
as a propitiation for all the sins of the whole world. 
The blood shed on Calvary cancels all the guilt of every 


penitent believer ; and a life spent in doing good upon 
this earth will secure from our Judge in the great day 
of reckoning these thrilling words of commendation : 
" Well done, thou good and faithful servant ; thou hast 
been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler 
over many things ; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."